BV 811 .D63 1886 
 Ditzler, J. 
 Baptism 
 
BAPTISM: 
 
 By J. DITZLER, D.D. 
 
 "PROVE ALL THINGS."— Paw?. 
 
 Nashville, Tenn. : 
 SOUTHERN METHODIST PUBLISHING HOUSE. 
 
 1886. 
 
COPYRIGHTED. 1881. 
 
To AIy Beloved and Esteemed Former 
 Preceptor, 
 
 Rev. B. H. McCOWN, D.D. 
 
 of axchoragk, ky. 
 
 This Work is Respectfully Dedicated 
 
 By the Author. 
 
Rev. B. H. McCown, D.D.: 
 
 Dear Sir — For several years after attending college I 
 had the honor of pursuing the languages under your di- 
 rection. You were present, as you told me, during the 
 discussion between Mr. Campbell and Rice at Lexington, 
 Ky. Elder A. Campbell, as the debate shows, selected 
 you as a most proper authority to whom, on his part, he 
 preferred referring a philological point in dispute. You 
 are presumed, therefore, on both sides of this controversy, 
 to be an impartial and able witness. Not on this account 
 only, but because of your former kindness toward and in- 
 terest in the Author, I have dedicated this Book, the result 
 of so much pains and toil, to you, as an humble token of 
 regard, and subscribe myself. 
 
 Yours in Christ, 
 
 J. DITZLER. 
 Long VIEW, Louisville, Ky., 1880. 
 
CHAPTER I. 
 
 Introduction. 
 
 Dr. T. O. Siimmers justly complains to Bishop Andrew 
 of the many trashy works on baptism. Rev. J. D. Hud- 
 son, of Alabama, does the same, regretting the common- 
 place repetitions of the various compilations on this sub- 
 ject. While Drs. M. Stuart, Rice, Rosser, Chapman, Seiss, 
 Hibbard, E. Beecher, Edwards, Bishop Merrell, and Sum- 
 mers have done excellent service, it can not be* stated that 
 they have thrown any new light on the subject, and it 
 really stands where it was left by Lightfoot in the seven- 
 teenth century. We will have occasion to point out im- 
 portant facts on this subject on many occasions. As a 
 sample of the carelessness of writers and their indifference 
 to the progress of investigation, we feel it to be our duty 
 to select one sample page from the work of Dr. Summers 
 himself. We should not do this but for his repeating it in 
 editions that ought to have corrected the blunders, espe- 
 cially when the bishops had honored his book as our stand- 
 ard on baptism. In the "New and Revised Edition '^ of 
 1878, from a revised edition of June 6, 1874, after we had 
 published correct reports of those authors. Dr. Summers 
 in one single page (222) thus copies some authorities: 
 
 BAPTIDZO. 
 
 "Gazes: hrecho, pluno, louo, antlo.'' This is a mere 
 scrap of Gazes's definition, yet the same may be found in 
 a host of compilations. Turn now to our list of lexicons 
 
 (5) 
 
G BAPTISM. 
 
 and see liow defective is the above. He reports Scapula 
 as saying it means '^ to dip/^ He does not say so. He 
 reports him as saying that it means ^'to dye.'' This 
 is preposterous. He says Stephanus gives '^dip." He 
 does not. He thus reports Schleusner; "To plunge, im- 
 merse ; to cleanse, wash, purify with water, etc.'' Turn to 
 my list and see how defective is this as a citation of the 
 great German. 
 
 He quotes Suidas as defining it, "To sink, plunge, 
 immerse, wet, wash, cleanse, jmrify/' Suidas does not 
 define the word, and this is simply repeating the blunders 
 of former compilations. These are only a part of the er- 
 rors of a part of one page ! Is not a text-book accurate 
 at least in all citations and texts most desirable? 
 
 Gale, Booth, Carson, Cox, E. Beecher, Conant, Dale, 
 Moses Stuart profess to treat the subject philologiGolly, as 
 also A. Campbell, Prof Ripley, and Ingham of London. 
 Conant being so favorably surrounded excelled all men 
 in collecting classic occurrences of haptldzo. Dale stands 
 next in point of merit there, and before all others in his 
 research in patristic literature on Mode, though of little 
 value; for after the third century, not to say the close of 
 the first, small is the help we get i^MlologiGally, save of 
 the few whose work as translators compelled them to be 
 philological and not so dogmatic, not to say superstitious. 
 While Dr. Dale did much in Latin and Greek literatures 
 we think he failed as a philologist in toto, as will be abun- 
 dantly shown when we come to the classics on bapto and 
 haptldzo . 
 
 The utterly unscientific method always followed on this 
 subject by both sides may well account for the unsettled 
 state of the controversy. Long delay in the correct and 
 complete solution of a disturbing question is not proof 
 
INTRODUCTION. / 
 
 that the friends of truth and Christian fraternity may not 
 hope for a complete sohition. 
 
 To tlie hishops, the many ministers of both the great 
 wings of Methodism, many Presbyterian and Congrega- 
 tional ministers, who for ten years past have urged us to 
 publish the result of our labors and researches on this 
 question, we return our grateful thanks. Our delay has 
 been unavoidable from 1869, but afforded opportunity to 
 incorporate refutations of the most recent blunders of 
 many authors, and to add the facts developed by Max 
 Miiller confirming the views and methods always main- 
 tained by us on the science of language. 
 
 It has cost us much pains to adapt the work to both 
 the learned and the unlearned. To do this we have kept 
 the quotations that are in the languages in foot-notes as 
 \vell as some more elaborate criticisms, so as not to im- 
 pede the plain English scholar, and yet enable him to see 
 the force of the most learned arguments if he choses to 
 read the notes. 
 
 It will be seen that we give prominence to the ancient 
 versions very far beyond other works on this subject, for 
 most just reasons. Our opponents have attached the 
 greatest importance to this field. It will be seen by com- 
 parison that as yet the field had not been touched, com- 
 paratively, by the one side — excessively misused by the 
 other. 
 
 It will be seen how lexicons were almost totally mis- 
 quoted, the original generally not given, and the grer.t 
 masters, as a rule, wholly ignored, or so indifferently cited 
 as to leave the reader in total ignorance of what they said. 
 Many samples will be presented. In Oriental languages 
 we produce from their original works the great masters, 
 Schindler, Buxtorf, Castell, Fiirst, Leigh, etc.; in Greek 
 
8 BAPTISM. 
 
 classics, Passovv, Rost, Palm, Pape, as the most accurate 
 and learned and recent; Schneider, Gazes, Wahl, Schleus- 
 ner, earlier; and among the older lexicons, classic and 
 biblical, Stephanas, Suicer, Stokius, etc. 
 
 We flatter ourselves that we have exhibited the exact 
 use of classic Greek. We have aimed to point out its 
 abuses and cited authorities in abundance on such mat- 
 ters. In philology, in the science of languages, in the dis- 
 covery of primary meanings, the classic Greek is of vast 
 importance. The difference between haptidzo as a clas- 
 sic and religious Avord we have aimed to make so clear 
 that only very willful stupidity can reject the evidences. 
 
 Since all my manuscripts were ready for the press 
 (1872-1875) the Carrollton debate occurred between J. R. 
 Graves, LL.D,, and myself, and was published by the 
 Baptist House in Memphis, Tenn., under the eye and in 
 the same house where the doctor edits his paper. The 
 Baptist. It is with regret that we have to expose the 
 astounding conduct of our opponent in that debate. Af- 
 ter I had written out my speeches, as agreed, and left 
 them with the publisher. Dr. Mayfield, and left for Texas, 
 Dr. Graves took out my speeches — on my return I saw 
 him with them — and rewrote all of his. This was done 
 after we both had our names, February 15, 1876, sub- 
 scribed to the declaration that it was a correct report 
 of tlie debate. As the phonographer failed utterly to get 
 my speeches, speaking so rapidly, I had to write them 
 out from my notes. All will see that much of minor im- 
 l)ortance and nearly all repartee would be lost — unavoid- 
 ably so. After thus subscribing ourselves, and after he 
 had professedly published his speeches on Mode in his 
 paper. Dr. G. took my manuscripts and rcAvrote all of his, 
 adding as many as six, eight, ten, and even twelve pages 
 
INTKODUCTIOX. 9 
 
 of new matter at a time in single speeches, not a line of 
 which was used during debate, and leaving out what he 
 did say wherever exposed. Whatever he says of cove- 
 nants is just the reverse of the facts in toto. As I re- 
 ' turned from Texas through Memphis I examined parts of 
 several of his speeches on Mode — the fourteenth and 
 fifteenth, besides much already added from the eighth on. 
 I sat down in their room and added a few pages to my 
 twelfth and thirteenth speeches to meet some of his addi- 
 tions from the sixth to twelfth, and rewrote my fourteenth 
 and fifteenth in reply to his, making them far longer than 
 half-hour speeches can be made; added several pages to 
 the sixteenth on Mode, and never was permitted to see his 
 seventeenth, eighteenth, and nineteenth speeches on Mode, 
 nor any thereafter, not even the proof-sheets. Not a page 
 after ray seventeenth speech in the book was proofed by 
 me. In these he makes his daring assertions he dared not 
 make when I was there. He purposely delayed his man- 
 uscripts under various pretenses till a public debate at 
 Stanford, Ky., iVpril 2d to 9th, called me away. I Avrote 
 for the proofs of our speeches, but neither his nor mine 
 were ever sent to me. One of my speeches of half hour 
 I rewrote, making it a reply to three or four he had slip- 
 ped in without my knowledge of the enormous changes. 
 The seventeenth, though I never got his seventeenth as 
 rewritten by himself, I prepared in McKenzie, Tenn., 
 where I stopped on my way, and where I wrote for a re- 
 turn of my last two speeches to recast them, in view of 
 what he might do in his seventeenth, eighteenth, and nine- 
 teenth speeches; but they telegraphed they were nearly in 
 print and would be next day. They were not for yet two 
 iveeks. Innumerable typographical errors blot the work, 
 and in places where my own comments were made and 
 
10 BAPTISM. 
 
 carefully placed in brackets, the brackets are removed 
 and I charged by Dr. G. with trying to impose the brack- 
 eted words on the people as my own ! We will attend to 
 many of his bold and reckless assertions in this work. 
 
 In that debate we did all we could to force or draw him 
 out on Baptist succession, on history, or on the ancient 
 versions, and on them all he was dumb as an oyster. Yet 
 in the published debate he fills whole speeches with a reck- 
 less mass of crudities, defies me, and challenges refutation. 
 Well he knew there would be in the book no answer, be- 
 cause I would never see it till the book should be in print! 
 He was afflicted with a painful soreness of throat, spoke 
 very slowly — on an average not over one word to my 
 two. Hence his opening speech on Mode, on which he 
 was one hour and ten minutes — extra time allowed to 
 finish his points — makes but twelve pages and six lines. 
 His next full half-hour speech fills four pages and a third 
 solid. Compare these with those half-hour speeches that 
 have eighteen, twenty, twenty -two, twenty-seven pages, 
 much of it finer print, and all can see the truth. Again, 
 let any one examine his first eight or even ten speeches on 
 Mode and see how pointedly they are refuted ; his four- 
 teenth and fifteenth, that I caught him slipping in ^'on the 
 sly" as I came from Texas; see their exposure, and he 
 will see enough to prove that I never saw the remainder 
 of his speeches. 
 
BAPTISM — AmilNISTRATOPv — DESIGN. 1 1 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 Baptism — Administrator — Design. 
 
 Ill preparing a book on the mode of baptism, it is not 
 deemed necessary to treat of the administrator of bap- 
 tism, because: First. All Protestant churches are practi- 
 cally agreed on this subject, whatever may be the abstract 
 tlieories of some parties. As a rule only the ministers of 
 all these bodies baptize. Second. So far as theory or 
 practice goes, the New Testament does not throw any light 
 upon it of a positive character. We know not who bap- 
 tized the converts of Pentecost (Acts ii, 41) nor the first 
 Gentile converts (Acts x, 44-47). We never will know 
 who did the baptizing among Christ\s earlier disciples 
 (John iii, 22-25; iv, 2) before he had selected his apostles. 
 Compare Mark i, 14, 16-20; Luke iv and v entire, and vi, 
 13-16. There is no record where any one of the twelve 
 apostles ever baptized any person ; and Paul, the one 
 chosen out of the due order — the fourteenth one— really 
 boasts of having baptized only the few named in 1 Corinth- 
 ians i, 14-17, in person. Third. The fathers allowed of 
 baptism by laymen as well as by ministers, yet mainly the 
 ministers baptized. 
 
 As to the design of baptism, we will treat of that in a 
 separate work, the errors in the design being too grave and 
 numerous to be fully exposed and the true import of bap- 
 tism set forth in a convenient volume. But the real, the 
 scriptural design we propose to give, as it will shed light 
 on the mode as well as on the subjects of the rite. 
 
1 2 BAPTISM.* 
 
 The immersionists hold that ^•immersion was the bap- 
 tism commanded by Christ and practiced under the apos- 
 tles/' Of the most prominent writers of this class we 
 may name in Europe and the United States, Drs. Gale, 
 Carson, Cox, Hinton, Fuller, Booth, Conant, Mell, Rip- 
 ley, Ingham,-'^ A. Campbell, L. B. Wilkes, J. R. Graves, 
 Brents (G. W., of Tennessee). These in sul)stance rely 
 on the following assumptions to sustain this hypothesis, 
 namely, that 
 
 1. Baptism is an anglicized Greek word, baptisma 
 (i3a-Ti(T/ux), from the verb haptidzOj and it is derived from 
 the root bapfo, and has a specific meaning which is im- 
 merse, dip, plunge. They assert that, 
 
 2. This is sustained by the unanimous testimony of all 
 ancient and modern Greek lexicons or dictionaries, which 
 do always give immerse, dip, plunge as the meaning of 
 bapttidzo, and never sprinkle or pour. 
 
 3. The Greek literature of nearly two thousand years 
 fully sustains this, and is the only real standard of appeal. 
 
 4. All translations, ancient and modern, support this 
 position by rendering bapjto and baptidzo by words that 
 mean to immerse, never by words meaning to sprinkle or 
 pour ; that the ancient versions being made by the most 
 competent of all witnesses, are decisive of this question. 
 
 5. Baptidzo and bapto, its root, are translations of tlie 
 Hebrew words tabal and tzeba. that always mean to im- 
 merse, dip, or plunge. 
 
 6. That these facts are admitted also by all the. eminent 
 
 pedobaptist critics and scholars; but they set up tradi- 
 
 * Ingham, 1865, a very exhaustive work, compiled merely, has it 
 thus: 1. Lexicons; 2. Examples, especially in classic usage; 3. Ver- 
 sions, especially ancient — e. g. Syriac, etc.; ... 9, The word can not 
 represent actions as distinct as pouring, sprinkling, and immersing or 
 dipping. (Pages 27, 38, 575.) 
 
BA PTISM — ADMINISTr.ATOR — DESIGN. 1 3 
 
 tions and the authority of the church as the grand reason 
 for aifusion^ claiming the right to change the ordinances 
 of the church. 
 
 7. That the practice of the early centuries of the 
 church was altogether by immersion, and that no other 
 practice was allowed till about the thirteenth century, 
 save in case of sickness, and such cases were illegal, not 
 " ecclesiastical. '^ 
 
 8. That the prepositions used in connection with these 
 words, such as en, els, connecting them with the element — 
 baptize ^'in;^^ went into the water; and ek, apo, out of, 
 from, indicating emersion, ^Mielping out of the water'' — 
 strengthen these arguments. 
 
 9. That the allusions to baptism in the New Testament, 
 such as Romans vi, 3, 4; Colossians ii, 11, 12; 1 Cor- 
 inthians X, 1, 2 ; Hebrews x, 22, clearly demonstrate im- 
 mersion as the only apostolic practice, designed to sym- 
 bolize the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. 
 
 The places where baptism is represented as occurring — 
 in Jordan, **in ^non near to Salim, because there was 
 much water there"; Philip and the eunuch, etc., addi- 
 tionally strengthen this view. 
 
 To give force and certainty to these assumptions all 
 immersionists hold to certain theories as absolutely set- 
 tled, undeniable; viz: 
 
 1. That in a given period and summary of literature, 
 not at all commensurate with the actual literature of a 
 language, and all dating centuries later than the origin of 
 the language, and later than much of its best literature, 
 the prevailing meaning of a word at any such later period 
 is its primary meaning! 
 
 2. That if a word ever means, or implies, to dip, 
 plunge, immerse, it can never mean, or apply to, sprinkle 
 
14 BAPTISM. 
 
 or pour: and if to sprinkle or pour, it can never mean 
 (lip, plunge, immerse. 
 
 o. That wash, purify, cleanse are meanings of haptldzo 
 \\\ the New Testament and Apocrypha because derived 
 from immerse. Hence the New Testament often alludes 
 to baptism as a washing, cleansing, etc. (Eph. v, 26; Titus 
 iii. 5; Acts xxii, 16; Heb. x, 22, etc.), while all ancient 
 versions render baptize by wash, cleanse, purify, etc., as 
 well as more recent ones in the sixteenth century.* 
 
 4. That classic Greek is the same as the New Testa- 
 ment Greek, and that baptidzo is to be explained and its 
 New Testament use determined by the classics ! 
 
 5. The less critical also advance the following absurdi- 
 ties as canons of interpretation, viz : That to sprinkle an 
 object is ^' to scatter it in drops." Hence baptidzo can not 
 mean to sprinkle, to pour upon, unless the object is invari- 
 ably "scattered in drops.'' A. Campbell, G. W. Brents, 
 and J. R. Graves adhere to this. 
 
 6. A number of immersionists maintain that if bap- 
 tidzo means to immerse, sprinkle, pour, then no one is bap- 
 tized until all three of these acts are accomplished upon 
 him! We may hope that this silly sophistry has ceased 
 to be repeated, especially as A. Campbell renders baptidzo 
 by some twenty or more diiferent words, Conant by four- 
 teen, etc. ; while drow^n, intoxicate, soak, make drunk figure 
 in all immersion works as among the meanings. 
 
 7. They hold that dip, immerse, plunge are all syn- 
 onymous in meaning. J. E,. Graves, Alexander Camp- 
 bell, Wilkes, etc. 
 
 We shall subject all these assumptions to a careful 
 examination and test of facts. 
 
 ^^ Syrlac, amad, fiecho ; Arabic, nmnda, gasala ; Latin, ^aro; German, 
 if^aftchen.; etc. 
 
ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 15 
 
 CHAPTER III. 
 Origin AifD Design of Baptism. 
 
 If the origin and design of baptism has ever been 
 explained, its real propriety presented, we have never met 
 with it. Nor have we ever seen an explanation of the 
 relation between the washing [baptism] with water and 
 the cleansings effected by blood in Exodus, Leviticus, 
 and Numbers. Tracing Christian baptism through pros- 
 elyte baptism as Vossius, Witsius, Lightfoot, etc. do, does 
 not bring us any nearer the matter. The real origin and 
 design of baptism remains unexplained. The careless 
 and excessively loose treatment it has received may well 
 account for its horrid distortions. 
 
 Every rite must have some reason in it in the element 
 used, if elements arc used, and in the then current force 
 of the word as used by the writers or speakers. Hence 
 we must look for the origin of this rite in the religious 
 import of the word icash (rachats in Hebrew), cleanse , 
 and in the symbolism of water. 
 
 Among all nations, in every European language, Egyp- 
 tian, and those of Asia Minor, water represented inno- 
 cence and purity — cleansing. Cleansing made the party 
 innocent. The outward symbolized and was declarative 
 of his innocence, whether actually cleansed from actual 
 guilt or really innocent. 
 
 In Homer's day, a thousand years before Christ, it was 
 an old custom for parties before going to prayer to wash 
 
16 BAPTISM, 
 
 themselves at the hoary sea, or besprinkle themselves 
 with clean water before praying to Minerva (Athene.)^ 
 They sprinkled with living water candidates for the Eleu- 
 sis. In Ovid, Homer, Diogenes, Virgil, Porphyry, He- 
 rodotus, etc. these washings are often alluded to in con- 
 nection with devotional exercises. Originally symbolic 
 of innocence, purity, absence of guilt, it came to be cor- 
 rupted in use as a real agency in purification, as an expia- 
 tion of crime. To this base use of it Tertullian alludes 
 at length. 
 
 In the earliest times, as Homer relates the earlier hea- 
 then customs, nearer the purer days of their religion, these 
 washings and cleansings were symbolic of the object of 
 their prayers and devotions — purity by which they became 
 innocent. Hence they besprinkled themselves witli water 
 as the first step. It was not then initiatory into any body. 
 
 In the Bible water symbolizes innocence and purity — 
 the one being implied in the other : ^' I will wash my hands 
 in innocency; so will I compass thine altar, O Lord'^ 
 (Ps. xxvi, 6; Ixxiii, 13). f Here it anticipates the object 
 of devotion — purity and innocence before God — symbol- 
 izes that object. Pilot, recognizing this Jewish use of wa- 
 ter, washed his hands in token of innocence as to Christ's 
 blood. 
 
 As religious innocence, implying purity, can be had only 
 through the merit of "the blood of sprinkling '' (1 Peter i, 
 2; Heb. x, 22 ; ix, 13-19; xii, 24; Num. xix, 9-13) applied 
 by the Spirit, the water comes to represent the Spirit by 
 
 *■ In the full citation in Clemens Alexandrinus where the passage is 
 given in full. 
 
 tin this Psalm, Ixxiii, 13, "I have cleansed my heart in vain, and 
 washed my hands in innocency." We must not forget the constant fact 
 that the water and Spirit are named or implied together throughout the 
 Bible — one inward, the other outward. 
 
ORIGIN A XL) DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 17 
 
 which we are actually cleansed as to its mode or action, 
 as well as its real design. Ps. li, 1-10; Is. i, 16; iv, 4; 
 xliv, 3 ; Ezek. xvi, 9 ; xxxvi, 25-27 ; Eph. v, 25, 26 ; Titus 
 iii, 5, 6 ; Heb. x, 22; with Matt, iii, 11, 12 ; Acts x, 41-44. 
 ^^ Can any man forbid water that these should not be bap- 
 tized who have received the Holy Spirit as well as luef 
 The constant association of the water in all these, as well 
 as innumerable other passages, shows that the water was 
 always symbolic of the innocence eifected by the Spirit's 
 application of Christ's blood, a7id of nothing but that. It 
 was not initiatory into any thing. Baptism is symbol and 
 nothing else. 
 
 In Moses's day the connection of the water and the 
 blood — as blood was the groundwork of all religious inno- 
 cence before God, the procuring cause — is striking. When 
 Moses had led the people out of Egypt, he consecrated 
 the priests and people with blood (Ex. xxviii, 41 ; xxix, 
 16-22), and sprinkled vessels, people, the book, and taber- 
 nacle with blood (Heb. ix, 17-22), and ordained that the 
 priests and people wash or be cleansed with water. Ex. 
 xxix, 4; XXX, 18-22; Lev. viii, 4-6; xv, xvi ; Num. viii, 
 7 ; xix, 13-22. When David repented he alluded to water, 
 to washing as a preliminary process (Ps. li, 2-10) as well 
 as to the sprinkling w4th blood (verse 7, '' Purge me with 
 hyssop"), where it is a spiintual washing prayed for, as all 
 will admit. The Greek, Syriac, and Latin read, ^^ Sprinkle 
 me with hyssop." Hebrews x, 22, unites the blood as the 
 real work, the w^ater as the symbol of cleansing — ^^ having 
 our hearts sprinkled — our bodies washed, etc." — i. e. sym- 
 bolically cleansed, as Aaron's was (Lev. viii, 6). 
 
 When Moses washed Aaron and his sons with water 
 (Lev. viii, 6) it was not initiatory but preliminary. He 
 was first washed, and after this all that occurs throughout 
 2 
 
18 BAPTISM. 
 
 the long chapter, for eight days, occurred before he was a 
 priest (chapter ix, 1-12). If baptism was a door into the 
 church, all this was strange. Stranger still, as they bap- 
 tized themselves every day before performing their duty. 
 Did they initiate themselves into the church every day? 
 
 When God called people to re[>ent (Is. i, 16), washing 
 as a preliminary process, symbolic of purity, is alluded to 
 in the spiritual Avashing : " Wash you, make you clean'^ 
 (Is. i, 16). In Exodus xxx, 18, a laveris made for Aaron 
 and his sons to ^' wash with water '^ thereat — " out of it,^^ in 
 the Greek and Hebrew. But what was the import, the 
 design, the symbolism of the cleansing with water when the 
 party was sprinkled with blood, etc. for a purification? In 
 Leviticus xiv, 7, 8, 51-53, a person is sprinkled seven times 
 with blood, and is pronounced cJean when sprinkhd. After 
 this he is "to wash with water^' [Jiitdatij. The washing 
 with water could only be declarative of the typical cleans- 
 ing effected by the sprinkled blood, as Hebrews x, 22, 
 also. The house was sprinkled seven times with blood and 
 water, the water answering to that of the person cleansed, 
 washed, sanctified (Num. viii, 7 ; Eph. v, 26). "And thus 
 shalt thou do unto them to cleanse them, sprinkle water of 
 j)urifyiug upon them.'' "Sanctify and cleanse by the vash- 
 ing of icater by the word.'' Some assert that this was with 
 water mingled with ashes of a burnt heifer (Num. xix. 
 0-22). But that latter rite was not introduced till between 
 nineteen and thirty- seven years after this. See Numbers, 
 chapter xx, in this connection also. In the case of the 
 water of separation, of Numbers xix, the defiled was to 
 "purify himself with it." If he failed to do so he was 
 unclean, defiled the tabernacle, and was therefore to be 
 cut oif. Why? "Because the water of separation was 
 not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean." 
 
ORIGIN AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 19 
 
 The Targum of Jonathan is very emphatic on Numbers 
 xix, 13, where the words ^^ shall not purify himself^' (verse 
 13) read '^ shall not sprinUe himself^' — ^* Since the waters 
 [^mon] of sprinkling were not sprinkled upon him, he is 
 unclean; as yet his pollution is upon him. until he besprink- 
 les himself J^ The Persic is very much the same. Paul 
 (Heb. ix, 13) agrees perfectly with this view: '^ Sprinkling 
 the unclean, sanctifieth unto the purifying of the flesh.'' In 
 this case again tlie water betokened the typical cleansing — 
 was declarative of its work. But in Numbers xix, 18, a tent 
 and vessels of the ministry are purified by only sprinkling; 
 but the person, after being sprinkled ^^for a purification 
 for sin," was to wash his garments and his person (Jiudat'i) 
 with water, and be [thus declared] clean, and if unclean 
 it was ^^ because the water of separation was not sprinkled 
 upon him'' (13, 20). The water in all these cases be- 
 tokens the innocence secured by the blood of sprinkling — 
 symbolic innocence — made actually innocent by Christ's 
 blood. In all this the clear understanding of the typical 
 baptisms when first introduced will enable us to see the 
 real design of baptism, as well as to understand who are 
 proper subjects of the rite. It opens the way to rid the 
 public mind of the awful abuses that confuse the mind and 
 blind the judgment of men. Initiatory rite, door into the 
 church, sign of death, burial, and resurrection, communi- 
 cating grace, for remission of sins — all these horrid dis- 
 tortions of the beautiful symbol are scattered to the four 
 winds by a clear historic insight into the rite. 
 
 Now these ^^ divers baptisms,'' as Paul calls them (Heb. 
 ix, 10), different kinds of baptisms; some with mere 
 blood ; some with mere water sprinkled on them ; some 
 with blood and running water administered to men, 
 houses, tents, vessels; some with water mingled with the 
 
20 BAPTISM. 
 
 ashes, were all to effect, declare, typical purity. The per- 
 son had to wash after lie was purified to declare and sym- 
 bolize the fact. The whole truth then was, Christ's 
 blood — "blood of sprinkling'' (Heb. x, 22; ix, 14; xii, 
 24; 1 Pet. 1, 2) — was the only real cleansing from sin. 
 The blood of animals typically cleansed from guilt or 
 sin, and the water symbolized to the person that he 
 WO.S cleansed. 
 
 We see in all this the origin and design of baptism. 
 All these sprinklings Paul calls baptisms — '' ivasJiings/' in 
 our version. But all parties agree that the {rachois, louo, 
 nipto) luashing also of persons was baptism. And it is 
 the one we have most to do with. It was, like the rest, 
 wholly symbolic. That was its entire religious meaning 
 and design. Infants were subjects of baptism in its orig- 
 inal institution. As they purified by sprinkling them, 
 Joel ii, 15-17, sufficiently shows that infants, ^Hhose thai 
 suck the breasts,'^ were a part of the '^congregation^' 
 (Greek, eJcklesia, church) sanctified by being "sprinkled 
 with water." 
 
 They are born innocent, free from guilt, however 
 tainted by the transmission of that distemper, as Mr. A. 
 Campbell calls it, that ruined our race. As the blood of 
 Christ covers their condition, and they are innocent and 
 in a saved condition — their condition, the status to which 
 conversion brings aliens (Matt, xviii, 1-5; Eph. ii, 13- 
 19) — they of all persons are most properly entitled to 
 baptism. Water does not primarily symbolize the Spirit, 
 but innocence, then religious purity ^vhich makes inno- 
 cence, because to an alien or sinner the Spirit applies 
 the merit of Christ's blood to the actual washing away 
 of actual sins. Therefore^ water or baptism of water, 
 symbolizes the means, the Spirit's application, to effect 
 
OEIGIX AND DESIGN OF BAPTISM. 21 
 
 this innocence or purity. In 2 Maccabees i, 18, 21, 31, 
 33, we read tliat when the Jews got the opportunity to re- 
 form and attend to their religious duties they began by a 
 general outward purification. '^ We proposed to keep the 
 purifying of the temple.^' Hence, "Nehemiah com- 
 manded the priests to sprinkle the wood and the things 
 laid thereon with water. '^ They prayed that the sacrifices 
 might be sanctified ^^ (verse 26). The water was (verse 
 31) poured on the great stones; therewith '^Nehemiah 
 purified the sacrifices." It is not to be forgotten that as 
 the Israelites passed the sea they were all baptized, in- 
 fants and adults (1 Cor. x, 1, 2); to which David seems to 
 allude most forcibly (Ps. Ixviii, 9) when God "confirms" 
 his church or "heritage" when he sent a "plentiful rain" 
 on them. 
 
 It is not surprising therefore that John came baptizing 
 that Christ, Avho was to thoroughly purge his floor, actu- 
 ally cleanse, purify, and save the people, might be made 
 manifest to Israel. It had all these centuries of prece- 
 dents in its favor, that when John called the people to 
 baptism it involved and implied to them the need and 
 desire to seek purity. Is it possible it could ever change 
 its import? Nevek. Hence today it is in the name of 
 the Trinity involved in the work of our purification, mak- 
 ing us innocent. 
 
22 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER IV. 
 Baptism with Water. 
 
 Washing with water was familiar to all people. Mode 
 was not implied. Washing is most constantly the effect 
 of aifusion all around us. The rain washes houses, trees, 
 plants, herbs, grass from the dust or whatever may soil 
 that it can remove. People wash their hands where 
 they dip one into the water to apply it to both, rubbing. 
 One may ponr it on the hands of another, as is often 
 done, and as was the custom in the days of Elijah (2 
 Kings iii, 11). People wash their faces and bodies with 
 water. Baths are had both where the body is partially 
 put into the water and where water is showered from 
 above, or, as in olden times, a servant pours water over 
 the body. In all these ways persons and things are 
 washed ivith tcater. Such a process the Greeks would 
 express by lousetai en hudati {" wash icith tcater ") ; nipsetai 
 en hudati; or simply omitting the en (^^with'^), hudati, 
 (^^with icater'^). As the Jews had been used to these 
 expressions in the Pentateuch, and for icash we have bap- 
 tize in the later Greek writers, hence in the New Testa- 
 ment it is not surprising that there we have this form so 
 constantly recurring. 
 
 ^' I indeed baptize you with water. He shall baptize 
 
 you with the Holy Ghost. "^ So Matthew, Mark, John 
 
 * Matt, iii, 11 ; Mark i, 8; John i, 31, 32. The Greek in these places 
 is h vdari, en hudati. In Mark i, 8, however, the best Greek MSS. have 
 
BAPTISM WITH WATER. 23 
 
 and Luke and Peter and Christ declare.'^ This is the 
 historic and conipreheusive way of* narrating it — baptism 
 was with water. Water was the instrument used with ichich 
 people were baptized. This language declares the general, 
 the universal practice of baptism with water. ^' He 
 shall baptize with (en) the Holy Spirit." Acts x, 45: ^^On 
 the Gentiles also was poured out the gift of the Holy 
 Ghost." It fell on them (verse 44). Now, says Peter, 
 telling this t^ ^'the apostles and brethren" (Acts xi, 1), 
 ^'As I began to speak, the Holy Ghost fell on them, as on 
 us at the beginning. Tlien remembered I the word of the 
 Lord, how that he said, John indeed baptized with water, 
 but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost" (Acts 
 xi, 15-17). Notice here, first, they are baptized witli 
 water; second, they are baptized with the Holy Spirit; 
 third, the mode of the all-essential baptism is given. It 
 was '* poured on them." It "fell on them." So in the 
 Bible it is represented as "shed forth," "poured upon." 
 It is often called ''anointing/^ " unction." f AH believers 
 received this sealing power of the Spirit. J By one Spirit 
 are we all baptized into one body." Christ baptizes 
 us with the Spirit. Cornelius's house was thus baptized ; 
 that is, "it was poured out on them." It "fell on 
 them " — ^they were baptized with it. 
 
 In Acts i, 5, it was poured on them. Some say it filled 
 the house, and they were immersed in it. To immerse hi 
 an element is to put the object into it. Here it is claimed 
 
 ^'Luke iii, 16; Acts i, 5; xi, 17. In these cases it is simply vSari, 
 hudati. Peter tells us " the Lord said " the same (Acts xi, 15, 16). 
 
 tEzek. xviii, 31; xxxvii, 5-14; Jer. xxxi, 33; Is. xxxii, 15; xliv, 3; 
 Prov. i, 23; Joel ii, 28; Acts i, 1-5, 33; ii, 28; x, 44, 45; xi, 14-17; 
 1 Peter i, 12 ; 1 John ii, 20, 27, 28 ; v, 6, 7, 10 ; 2 Cor. i, 21 ; Acts iv, 27 ; 
 Titus iii, 5, 6. 
 
 t Titus iii, 5-7; Eph. i« 12-14; 1 Cor. xii, 3-13; and the ahove 
 
 tC\t':. 
 
24 BAPTISM. 
 
 the Spirit filled the house where they were assembled. In 
 that case it would overwhelm them, but not dip them, 
 surely, or immerse them. But it is untrue that it filled 
 the house. It does not say so. Tlie sound as of a rush- 
 ing mighty wind filled the house. So states the text. It 
 (the sound) filled it. But in all the other places there 
 is no such fact. And in all cases the Spirit was poured on 
 them. The Spirit thus acting baptized thetn, Christ being 
 the baptizer. Isaiah xliv, 3; Zechariah xii, 10; Joel ii, 
 •28, of the Old Testament; Peter, Acts xi, 15, 16; Luke, 
 in Acts X, 44, 45; Paul, Titus iii, 5, 6, tell us the Spirit 
 was poured out on the people — six witnesses. Matthew 
 iii, 11: Mark i, 8; Luke iii, 16; John i, 33; Acts i, 5; 
 Peter, Acts xi, 15, 16; John the Baptizer, in Matthew iii, 
 11, etc.; Christ, Acts xi, 16; Paul, 1 Corinthians xii, 13 — 
 eight New Testament writers and speakers call this pour- 
 ing on of the Spirit on the people, baptizing them with the 
 Spirit. Is. xliv, 3: "I will pour water upon him that is 
 thirsty^' symbolizes the words in the same verse, ^^I will 
 pour my Spirit upon thy seed." It was the " I baptize 
 you with water, with the Spirit," of the above texts. 
 
 But it is answered. Is the Spirit literally poured upon 
 men? Is it not present every where, filling all space, 
 ubiquitous, above, around us? How then can it be poured 
 on us when it is present every where? To tliis we reply: 
 
 1. Yes; but if it holds good as an argument, the possi- 
 bility of the Spirit being literally poured on us, shed upon 
 us, etc., or against the propriety of such language, how 
 much more is it against the idea or possibility of being 
 dipped in the Spirit ? How can people be immersed in the 
 Spirit from this standpoint? To be dipped implies not 
 merely putting in, partially or wholly, but being with- 
 drawn. How could thev be immersed into that in which 
 
BAPTISM WITH WATEK. 2o 
 
 already they were enveloped? Suppose people were already 
 entirely under the water of a lake or river, liow could they 
 be dipped into it, when already enveloped in the water? 
 So this dodge leaves the objector in a worse predicament 
 than ever. | 
 
 2. Hence the Spirit^s influence or operation on man's 
 moral nature is repeatedly called in the New Testament 
 baptizing with the Spirit. It is called baptism. 
 
 3. The Bible throughout designates this act or work 
 of the Spirit, baptizing them with the Spirit, pouring the 
 Spirit on them, as just seen.* 
 
 4. Then, why do the ])rophets and apostles represent 
 the S})irit as ^^ poured" on the people in the baptismal act? 
 A good reason must underlie such language. First, there 
 was a grand reason for the action of the Spirit being com- 
 pared to the wind (John iii, 8) ; second, there was a reason 
 for representing us as begotten by the Spirit — '^ born of the 
 Spirit" — we receive character, impress from it; third, why 
 is it often represented as "an unction," '^an anointing"? 
 Because the wind literally does act as named, known by its 
 effectfi, so is every one born of the Spirit. Because those 
 "anointed" have the symbolizing oil literally poured on 
 them, therefore we are anointed by the Spirit. Because 
 seals of state were literally placed upon documents to give 
 impress, character, passport, acceptance, we are "'sealed 
 with the Spirit of promise " (Eph. i, 13 ; 2 Cor. i, 22). Be- 
 cause in outward baptism the water was literally poured 
 on those baptized, they are said to be baptized with the 
 
 "••• To those who, like Stokius in his lexicon, assert that hoptidzo is 
 used to express the abundance of the Spirit, or its gifts, though he tells 
 us it was by pouring, we reply that ;t;«cj, chco, to pour, is often so used 
 in the classics and the Bible, and with certain prepositions it represents 
 floods even, abundance, bounteousness. But where does dip or immerse 
 repre--ent the?;? idea,- ? 
 
26 BAPTISM. 
 
 Spirit, it is said to be poured on them. Tlie water was 
 a symbol, as was the oil a symbol from other standpoints. 
 Hence the objection brings out the clearest argument pos- 
 sible. 
 
 No intelligent person is willing to rest a good cause on 
 mere allusions, much less upon one or two highly-wrought 
 metaphors that allude to baptism, whether it be by that 
 of the Spirit or of water. Baptizing, eis, epi (Mark i, 9; 
 Matt, iii, 13), e«, at Jordan, in ^non, because there was 
 much water there; and Acts viii, 38; Romans vi, 4, give 
 us no historic basis, 7io fact, as to the action or mode. 
 A. Campbell states it only as an "inference^' as to the 
 eunuch. He can 't say he was immersed. Dr. Wilkes 
 puts it at best only as a "hypothesis.'^ ^ We now propose 
 to give a historic basis on this question, and facts that 
 will clearly account also for the going to Jordan, JEnon, 
 etc. Surely the ordinary reasons assigned arc absurd. 
 Dr. Barclay (immersionist) in City of the Great King, 
 Elder Wilkes, and Baptists as well, tell us of four acres 
 of pools of water in Jerusalem from forty-five to forty- 
 seven feet deep in the centers, showing plenty of water iu 
 which to immerse, in which the three thousand of Pente- 
 cost (Acts ii, 41) could have been plunged. Well, then, 
 why did j^eople go in great numbers from thence to Jor- 
 dan for baptism if quantity or sufficiency of water for the 
 mode of baptism was the motive? Again, why leave the 
 Jordan and go to ^non if that was the question? Again 
 as it is only in connection with Johii\'i baptism we ever 
 read of Jordan and ^non as to baptism, if the people 
 had to go to Jordan and ^non for a sufficiency of w^ater 
 for the baptismal act, how came no one to go to either 
 place in all the sixty-seven years of baptisms under the 
 ■•'■ Louisville Dehate, page 582. 
 
BAPTISM WITH WATER. 27 
 
 apostles? John's lasted only some six months. If John's 
 subjects did go thence for the purpose of getting sufficient 
 water for the mode, it is the strongest possible proof 
 against immersion in the apostolic age. 
 
 1. John baptized at first ^M^eyond Jordan/' "in Beth- 
 any"* (John i, 28; x, 42), where Christ afterward dwelt 
 for a time, "into the place where John at first baptized" 
 (John X, 40). 
 
 2. He next baptized at (epi) the Jordan (Matt, iii, 13). 
 Luke reads "about Jordan" (Luke iii, 3). Mark has it 
 eis, at, in, or into (Mark i, 9); en, "at," "in," ^'%," 
 "about" (verse 5). 
 
 That Mark's en does not indicate mode, but merely the 
 place, location, in which the baptism Avas performed, is 
 evident from the fact that where the action of the baptism 
 is named it is in Mark " loitli water (Mark i, 8), not in 
 water. And the correct texts of Tischendorf, Tregelles, 
 etc. have no en in Mark i, 8, in the Greek either. That 
 it does not indicate mode but merely place is further evi- 
 dent from Matthew's words, "at Jordan," Luke's, "about 
 Jordan." The Hebrews stood still "in the midst of 
 Jordan" (Josh, iii, 17); "stand still in Jordan" (Josh, iii, 
 8); "into Jordan" (verse 11), all on dry land, just as the 
 people "came up out of Jordan" — repeated some five 
 times (Josh, iv, 16-21). "The Israelites pitched (en) 
 by a fountain" (1 Sam. xxix, 1). "Get thee hence, and 
 hide thyself (en) the brook Cherith" (1 Kings xvii, 3). 
 In Ezekiel i, 3; iii, 15; x, 15, 20, 22, in the Hebrew in (be) 
 and at (al) the river interchange over and again for the 
 same thing. But in Joshua the en (in) Jordan and into 
 
 * In James's version it reads Bethabara, but in Baptist Union Bible, 
 A, Campbell's, and Anderson's and Wilson's immersion versions it reads 
 Bethany, as well as in all ancient MSS. and versions, and is the only 
 correct reading;. 
 
28 BAPTISM. 
 
 Jordan are expressly limited and defined (Josh, iii, 8) by 
 eply at or by the Jordan (Josh, iii, 8). Upi is there used 
 as the limitation of en or els. So the en and eis of Mark 
 i, 5, 9, are limited and defined by Matthew^s epL And 
 some manuscripts of Joshua iii, S, expressly use eis for ejyi 
 in that verse: '^As ye come els (to) the water; '^ others, ^'As 
 ye come epi (to) the water." * 
 
 3. Every Jew baptized himself from once to two, 
 three, four times a day in Christ's day (Mark vii, 3, 4; 
 Luke xi, 38), with facts detailed in the laver argument. 
 Did they all go to Jordan to find water enough for their 
 baptism? We see in the laver argument that all Jews 
 baptized daily, and baptized their furniture and their beds 
 every day. When we are told of big cisterns twenty-two 
 feet deep, sixteen or seventeen feet wide, that families had 
 against the three, four, or five months of drouth every sea- 
 son, and that they could immerse in them, we again refer 
 you to Leviticus xi, 30-36; Numbers xix, 22; xxxi, 23; 
 Leviticus xv entire, etc. as an utter refutation of that. 
 And in the face of those facts would a man, his wife, their 
 six, eight, ten children, and often six, eight, ten servants, 
 male and female, daily immerse in the cistern and daily 
 immerse their beds in it, then use the water for drinking, 
 for cooking, and the like. Immersion theories require 
 this. 
 
 * Origen's Hexapla, in loc. So likewise epi and en interchange, e. g. 
 Judith xii, 7, epi, at the fountain ; some MSS. en, at, etc. 
 
BAPTISM OF PAUL (sAUL). 29 
 
 CHAPTER V. 
 
 Baptisi»[ of Paul (Saul). 
 
 In Acts ix, 18, we read in the Greek Testament, "And 
 standing up [he] was baptized/' The facts show that 
 while Saul was praying he kneeled on his face, a habit 
 very common then. Christ in the garden " fell on his 
 face, and prayed'^ (Matt, xxvi, 39), where Luke says he 
 kneeled (xxii, 41). Cornelius fell at the apostle's feet to 
 pray (Acts x, 25). The jailer "fell down before" the 
 apostle and Silas (Acts xvi, 29). 1 Corinthians xiv, 25, 
 shows it was the common habit. Saul had been praying 
 in the deepest humility of spirit (Acts ix, 11). It was 
 while in this attitude that his sins were washed away, 
 in the act of prayer, and the Spirit received (Acts ix, 
 16-18). Then he arose, stood up, and was baptized. So 
 the other report of it (Acts xxii, 16): Arise, "standing 
 up, be baptized, having washed away thy sins in calling 
 on the name of the Lord/' All ancient English versions — 
 six in number — before James's read, "in calling on the 
 name of the Lord." * Peter said to Cornelius (Acts x, 
 26), " Stand up" (anasthsethi), and he helped him to stand 
 up. 
 
 Matt, iii, 13: "Jesus cometh [epi, ^tt)] to Jordan unto 
 John, to be baptized." It was [ept] at the Jordan, not 
 
 -•• Kal avaaraq k^aTzricdr]^ kai anastas ehaptisihce. The Greek implies 
 that while or in the act of standing he was baptized. There is no " and " 
 {kai) in the Greek. Such a form of words shows he stood for the 
 purpose of being baptized. 
 
30 BAPTISM. 
 
 in or into it. Mark i, 9, has for this eis, at, into, by, in. 
 Of eis Liddell & Scott's Greek Lexicon says its ^'radical 
 signification is direction toward, motion to, on, or hito.'^ So 
 say Kiihner, Buttman, Passow, E,ost, Palm, Pape — all 
 modern critics. It is toward, mere motion toward, to, on, 
 or into. Hence the primary meaning is not into; that is a 
 derived meaning resulting from the motion toward, etc. 
 Joshua iii, 8, epi, at, to interchanges with eis, at, to. As eis 
 means to, at primarily, and epi never implies into, but 
 limits the object to mere location on, at, by, to, it settles 
 this question. Though we could cite vast numbers of 
 texts where eis means to, at, by — e. g. 1 Kings xviii, 19, 
 "a^ CarmeP' — yet let us take a few that li7nit it to Jor- 
 dan, as this is a question about Jordan in Mark i, 9. 1 
 Kings ii, 6: "Meet me \eis] at Jordan. '^ 2 Kings ii, 6: 
 "For the Lord hath sent me [eis~\ to Jordan. '^ 2 Kings v, 
 4 : " The sons of the propliets came {eis) to the Jordan and 
 cut wood.'' Add a few more. 
 
 Is. xxxvi, 2: "The king sent Rabshakeh from La- 
 chish [eis'] to Jerusalem" — not into it, for the city was not 
 yet captured, and he remained outside by the potter's field, 
 and they came out and met him there (verse 3). 2 Kings 
 ii, 21: "AVent forth [eis] unto the spring of ^vaters." 
 Josh, iii, 16 : Eis, "toward the sea." Luke v, 4: " Launch 
 out [eis] into the sea." Note it was a ship or boat already 
 in the sea. In Mark i, 9, eis lordanaen in the Peshito 
 is bh^ Yurdhnon, at Jordan — not [le] into. Acts viii, 38, 
 it is le, into, to, etc. Rom. vi, 4: "Into death" is [le], 
 into. Wesley's version, in his notes, renders Mark i, 9, 
 "at Jordan," just as he does Matthew iii, 13, "at Jor- 
 dan." H. T. Anderson, immersionist, reads, "to Jordan" 
 (Matt, iii, 13). 
 
 In the above we have repeatedly the very tcords of Mark 
 
BAPTISM OF PAUL (sAUL). 31 
 
 i, 9, which immersionists render "into the Jordan ;^^ vet in 
 not one of these cases does it allow of this meaning. As 
 all the places where eis occurs with Jordan compel us to 
 reject this rendering and accept at as the force of the word, 
 and Matthew^s epi,"Q,t,^^ settles it, we do not propose to 
 surrender such facts to mere bravado. 
 
 Again, the rendering of H. T. Anderson, immersion- 
 ist most rigid; of the Bible of the Baptist Union ; and of 
 T. J. Conant, all of whom render Mark i, 10, and Matthew 
 iii, 6, "\\Q came up immediately //-om [apo] the water," 
 confirms this. Apo can not apply to emergence. Hence 
 Christ was not in nor under the water. The want of ac- 
 curate knowledge of the Greek in James's day — 1607 to 
 1610 — led them to suppose that apo meant at times out 
 of, and the old lexicographers of the previous century so 
 rendered it. No scholar will pretend now that it ever 
 means "out ofP Winer, Kiihner, Jelf, Robinson, Passow, 
 Pape, Liddell & Scott, etc. have utterly dissipated that 
 delusion. Hence Dr. T. J. Conant, the prince of Baptist 
 scholars in Europe or America , though so intolerant of 
 afPusion for baptism, says, " It has been erroneously sup- 
 posed that the same thing is stated in Matthew iii, 16, and 
 Mark i, 10. But the prep[osition] ^from' [apo) is there 
 used [so does Luke iv, 1, rendered ^from' even in James's 
 version] ; and the proj^er rendering is ' up from the 
 water/ ''^ Winer, the great German critic on idioms, 
 shows that apo can not be applied to a case where a sub- 
 ject was literally hi or under the water, but only to cases 
 where he was near to, by, at, "not i7i/' says he.f Because 
 
 *■ Baptizedn, page 98 note. 
 
 t " 'AvE^r/ OTTO, up from the Avater" (Idioms, 298). If baptidzo mean?, 
 as they say it does, to clip — as dip in all such uses implies withdrawal — 
 how could he come up out of the water in their sense, if dip had already 
 withdrawn him ? 
 
32 BAPTISM. 
 
 eh occurs in several of the best ancient manuscripts, Dr. 
 Wilkes insists it is the correct reading of Mark i, 10, as 
 in Tischenclorf. 1. By the same and by far more authority 
 he must reject Mark xvi, 15, 16. 2. Scholz, Winer, Bengel, 
 Lange, Theile, Olshausen, Mill, Griesbach, Conant, Ander- 
 son, Baptist Union Bible, all retain apo there. * 3. Even 
 if it were eh in Mark i, 10, it often means ^-from," while 
 apo never means ^^out of.^^ And all copies read apo, from, 
 in Matthew iii, 16, and Luke iv, 1. Hence Christ never 
 was literally in Jordan — i. e. the water — but only epi, at 
 Jordan, when baptized. 
 
 But taking the incorrect renderings of James, Luke and 
 John report the same matter thus: Luke iv, 1: ^'And Je- 
 sus being full of the Holy Ghost, returned from Jordan.'' 
 That which by Matthew and Mark is reported ^'from 
 the water" is here "returned from Jordan,'' showing that 
 mere departure from the Jordan is meant by all the writers. 
 John thus records it (iv, 3) : "He left Judea and departed 
 again into Galilee." Thus it is perfectly evident that the 
 writers merely meant to tell of his prompt return, of his 
 speedy temptation, and of his departure into Galilee; 
 nothing indicating emergence, but dejoartur'e. 
 
 PHILIP AND THE EUNUCH. 
 
 Acts viii, 38: The supposed confession of the eunuch is 
 
 so evident a forgery that A. Campbell, Anderson, Wilson 
 
 (formerly of their church), McGarvey, all threw it out of 
 
 the text most justly. It is not in any ancient copy (MS.) 
 
 of the Bible. Hence all correct Greek texts now reject it 
 
 without hesitation. 
 
 * Conant, Anderson, Bible Union, Baptist, professedly corrected the 
 Greek text, contrary to Wilkes's statement. 
 
BAPTISM OF PAUL (sAUL). 33 
 
 Next to Romans vi, 4, immersionists have made more 
 capital out of the baptism of the eunuch than out of all 
 else in Jameses version, especially as the ignorant masses 
 go beyond all records and jumble up the "much water '^ 
 of ^non with this case, then add both places to Christ's 
 baptism, quoting it as if he went straightway into the 
 water ! ! 
 
 1. Does the fact that "they went down both into the 
 water, both Philip and the eunuch,^' imply immersion? 
 Or that "they came up out of the water?'' These are the 
 words relied on. Do "into" and "out of" imply immer- 
 sion? Yes or no? If you say No, you give up the argu- 
 ment. If you say Yes, it destroys the immersion theory; 
 for if "into" and "out of" here imply immersion or dip- 
 ping, baptidzo does not; for after they went (m)* "into 
 the water," it reads, "and he baptized him;" i. e. it was 
 after he had been "baptized" that "they came up out 
 of the water." 
 
 2. If "into the water" and "out of the water" imply 
 immersion, both Philip and the eunuch were immersed. 
 "Both Philip and the eunuch" "went down into the 
 water," both came up out of it. If it is answered, Philip 
 had to go down into the water to immerse him, we reply, 
 first, that destroys the "out of" and "into" argument; 
 second, it assumes the very point to be proved, that he 
 did immerse him. It begs the question altogether. 
 
 3. But it is asked why did they go down into the water 
 if not for immersion ? If sprinkling was the mode why 
 did not Philip run down into the water and secure a cup 
 or pitcher full of water? First, decency and good will 
 would suggest that both go while one had to go ; second, 
 
 * I follow James's rendering here, of course. E<r means, primarily, 
 toward ; then to, unto ; then at, and into. 
 3 
 
34 baptis:m. 
 
 the laws of Moses show why. Wherever possible the law 
 required running, i. e. living water, to be used for baptism, 
 ritualistic washing. As yet Christianity had not gone to 
 the Gentiles, and Moseses law was strictly kept (see Acts 
 XV, 1-20; xxi entire; and Gal. iii) long after this. In the 
 facts of tlie laver argument all these matters are fully 
 presented, which see. It is also argued that the nobleman 
 had vessels for his use in the chariot, and water could 
 have been brought in the vessel from the place of water. 
 But if he had such, by their use by one unclean, all such 
 vessels were unclean, and water for any use could not be 
 used from such, as Leviticus xi, 30-36; Numbers xix, 22; 
 xxxi, 23, sufficiently tell us. 
 
 4. Bloomfield, Baumgarten, and other raost eminent 
 scholars believe Philip poured the water on him in the 
 baptism. 
 
 5. Finally, we insist if haptidzo means to dip, and we 
 know dip means that we put in and withdraw the object 
 dipped ; hence if he was dipped, he was withdrawn from 
 the water by Philip, which leaves it impossible that he 
 should go out of the water literally, being already with- 
 drawn from it. 
 
 We deem it time and space lost to discuss, as puerile 
 writers do, about whether there was sufficiency of water 
 between Gaza and Jerusalem in which to immerse the 
 eunuch, or to try to prove, as immersionists do, that the 
 jailer was led off in search of water. The plain facts all 
 indicate affusion as the mode, as to the three thousand, the 
 five thousand, Lydia, Cornelius, Paul, and the jailer. The 
 fact that in no instance did the parties in the whole history 
 of Christian baptism, during sixty-seven years, go in search 
 of water, so far as the record goes or hints — and we pro- 
 pose not to leave the record — is all so much evidence 
 
BAPTISM OF PAUL (sAUL). 35 
 
 against immersion. We are too bountifully supplied with 
 proofs of affusion to weaken our crushing facts by forc- 
 ing into service matters that of themselves afford no help 
 to either side. The language in Acts x, 46, 47, " Can 
 any man forbid water," is strongly in favor of the idea 
 of it being brought for the baptismal use as against 
 immersion. 
 
 We, however, can not see how the theory of immersion 
 can apply to the three thousand and five thousand on Pente- 
 cost and the next day, especially in view of this. All were 
 Jews. Purification or cleansing, if actual, defiled the water, 
 and only 07ie could be cleansed, washed, or baptized in or 
 with the same water. If ceremonial, then as soon as one was 
 ceremonially washed, or baptized symbolically, the water 
 became ceremonially unclean. "Whatsoever the ux- 
 
 CLEAN TOUCHETH SHALL BE UNCLEAN.'^ Certainly nOU- 
 
 believing Jews, to say the least, would regard all those 
 who received Christ as unclean. Would they have allowed 
 the Jews converted to Christ to thus ceremonially pollute 
 all their public waters ? We can not suppose so for a mo- 
 ment. See this further under the head of the lave?', Chap- 
 ter VI. If confession of each was taken as Baptists and 
 Disciples now do, it is difficult to see how so many could 
 be examined, prepared, and immersed after the apostles 
 closed their preaching (Acts ii, 41). 
 
 But we think the writers on both sides of this question 
 liave committed grave errors also in aiming to settle so 
 great a controversy, almost if not altogether, by the con- 
 structions they put upon (so far as the English version 
 goes, and largely as to the original) : 
 
 1. The merest incidental " allusions '' to baptism. Such 
 are Mark i, 9 (etV, eis), "in," '^' at Jordan;" Mark i, 5, 
 €71, "in the Jordan," at, in, or by ^non near Salim, in 
 
36 BAPTISM. 
 
 or at Bethany, into the water (Acts viii, 38) ; or, on the 
 other side, the three thousand on Pentecost (Acts ii^ 41) ; 
 the five thousand (Acts v, 14) ; Lydia, the jailer (Acts 
 xvi, 16, 33); Cornelius (Acts x, 43-47); Paul (Acts ix, 
 18, 19). These latter are just as decisive as the former, 
 if not much more so; yet they are not a historic basis; 
 are only incidental allusions, and all briefly given. 
 
 2. IVIetaphorical as v^^ell as incidental allusions, where 
 almost every word is highly metaphorical ; such texts 
 must always be more or less uncertain as to their exact 
 meaning when interpreted, at so remote a period, by a 
 people not versed in the metaphors of those times. Take 
 such examples as Romans vi, 3, 5 ; Colossians ii, 12; John 
 iii, 5. Scholars have always, since the fourth century, been 
 ])erplexed as to the real meaning and intent of these texts. 
 We say the fourth century, for till then Romans vi, 4, was 
 never referred to water baptism, but to spiritual, while 
 mostly John iii, 5, was held to be spiritual water, just as 
 Ofigen, Calvin, Beza, Zwingle, etc. held. 
 
 3. Those texts that are only allusions to the baptismal 
 Uise of water and are not actual baptism, and expressed in 
 highly metaphorical style, based upon the ancient use of 
 water. Such are Ephesians v, 26; Titus iii, 5; Isaiah iv, 
 4; Isaiah i, 16; Psalm li, 2-9; Ezekiel xvi, 9; Hebrews 
 X, 22, and are far more pertinent, since they are general 
 allusions to baptism and especially indicate its proper sym- 
 bolism, viz. cleansing. 
 
 What we demand is a historic basiSy a record of facts 
 in historic order, then the allusions and metaphors are to 
 be explained hy well-ascertained facts, not the fact assumed, 
 then souglit to be proved by mixed, uncertain, and meta- 
 phorical allusions; many of which are in themselves wholly 
 uncertain. 
 
BAPTISM OF PAUL (sAUL.) 37 
 
 METAPHORICAL INCIDENTAL ALLUSIONS TO WATER 
 AND SPIRIT BAPTISM. 
 
 But as mere incidental allusions to baptism are exclu- 
 sively relied on as to Bible arguments by our opponents, 
 let us examine a few of the acknowledged allusions to 
 WATER baptism, on which all parties are agreed that the 
 allusion is to ritualistic baptism. 
 
 Eph. V, 25, 26: "As Christ also loved the church, and 
 gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse 
 it with the washing (cleansing) of water by the word.^' 
 
 1. All immersionists refer this to baptism. A. Camp- 
 bell, Wilkes, Dr. Brents, and all their writers always cite 
 it thus and quote Wesley, Clarke, Doddridge, etc. to back 
 their statements. 
 
 2. It confirms affusion. What is done to effect the 
 (loutron) washing here? Two words are used — (1) sanc- 
 tify, (2) cleanse. (1) Sanctify. How did they ritualistic- 
 ally sanctify the church or people? Hebrew^s ix, 13, 19, 
 with Numbers xix, 13, 18, tell us it is done by sprink- 
 ling the water. Josephus tells us Moses " sprinkled 
 Aaron and his sons " for this purpose. See full quotations 
 under the argument on the laver. (2) Cleanse. How did 
 they cleanse them? Numbers viii, 7: "And thus shalt 
 thou do unto them, to cleanse them: Sprinkle water of 
 purifying upon them.^' Ezekiel xxxvi, 25, refers to this 
 
 f cleansing, and, like Paul, names only the sprinkling of 
 water as affecting it: "Then will I sprinkle clean water 
 upon you, and you shall be clean^^ — cleansed. Here we 
 have Paul, Moses, and Ezekiel giving us the mode of this 
 cleansing and sanctifying; it is by sprinkling clean or pure 
 water upon the persons. 
 
 Hebews x, 22, they all say refers to "Christian bap^ 
 
38 BAPTISM. 
 
 tism/^ Dr. Graves gives it special prominence (Debate^ p. 
 186) as ^^ Christian baptism/' But the above facts, as Avell 
 as the laver, show the washing was by aifusion of clean or 
 pure water on tlie parties. Where it says body — over and 
 again the Bible says body where only the face, the head, 
 etc., or a part is designated (John xiii, 9, compared with 
 verse 10, ^^ he that is washed ;'' verse 8, ^' if I wash thee 
 not;'' Matt, xxvi, 7, ^^ poured it on his head;^^ verse 12, 
 "on my body;'^ verse 10, "upon me;" Num. viii, 7, 
 "shave all their flesh," body; Titus iii, 5, 6) — they all 
 say alludes to or is baptism, the washing. Clearly enough 
 it is an allusion to the baptismal use of water, just as 
 Isaiah i, 16; Ezekiel xvi, 9; Psalm li, 1, 2, 7; Isaiah iv, 
 4, are — "wash me;" "I have washed thee with water," 
 etc.; but "the washing of regeneration" is that "which 
 he shed (poured oid) upon us abundantly" — a metaphor- 
 ical use of words based on the actual pouring of water 
 on the baptized subjects, symbolizing the Spirit (Isaiah 
 xliv, 3). Hence, 
 
 1. Jti all cases in the Bible luherc the mode q/* baptizing 
 (Spirit) is given it is pouring. 
 
 2. In all cases where the mode in the allusions to bap- 
 tism is given it is affusion. 
 
 3. Wherever such words as cleanse, sanctify are used, 
 referring to water, where all admit it points to baptism, as 
 Ephesians v, 26, it is affusion. 
 
 4. Immersion as an ordinance of God's church is a 
 stranger and foreigner to the whole Bible. 
 
JOEDAX. 39 
 
 CHAPTER VI. 
 
 Jordan. 
 
 The following facts will appear on examining the evi- 
 dence appended thereto: 
 
 1. John did not baptize at or in the Jordan at tlie 
 beginning of his ministry, but went " away again beyond 
 Jordan/^ to Bethany. 
 
 2. Jordan is in one of the hottest valleys in the world, 
 owing to its great depression at the lower part, where John 
 baptized. 
 
 3. The water flows from regions of perpetual snow, in 
 Hermon and Anti-Lebanon, and hence the water is very 
 cold. Most of the way it is shaded by abrupt cliffs and 
 mountains ^Hhousands of feet high.'^ Tlie waters run 
 dow^n a steep of three thousand feet, hence so cool from 
 such snow-regions on the mountains. 
 
 4. Smith's summary of the facts is: ^^From its fountain 
 heads to the point 'where it is lost to nature (empties in 
 the Dead Sea) it rushes down one continuotjs inclined 
 PLANE, only broken by a series of rapids or precipitous 
 falls.^^ This is immersion authority. Where are those 
 eddies, stagnant places, and conveniences we hear of? 
 
 5. John left such an unhealthy valley just as soon as 
 the great press of the multitudes would allow — as soon as 
 the numbers Avere so reduced that the springs or *^ foun- 
 tains'' at ^non near Salim would accommodate their 
 wants. 
 
40 BAPTISM. 
 
 6. It was a physical impossibility for John to stand in 
 the cold water so long as the immersion theory requires. 
 Circulation of blood would have ceased, animal heat would 
 have been promptly overcome, and death ensued in a short 
 time. 
 
 7. It is a physical impossibility that John could have 
 immersed so many, if even the smallest number that any 
 reasonable estimate demands be granted, in so swift o, 
 stream as was and is the Jordan. When a steamboat runs 
 eight miles to the hour, not to say ten, none but practiced 
 persons can risk throwing a bucket into the water and 
 drawing it out full of water. But here the stream is as 
 swift or swifter than that, and persons much heavier and 
 larger than a bucket certainly; and while a man could 
 take another and dip him by being very careful, it is not 
 possible that one man could immerse great numbers in 
 such a rapid stream, for the physical labor, the certainty 
 of many being swept away from his hold and drowning, 
 forbid. In a few minutes the limbs would become so 
 numb in such a cold stream as to make the action of the 
 l(>wer limbs impossible. 
 
 Let us now see the proofs. The length of the Jordan 
 directly to the Dead Sea is sixty miles. By its windings 
 it is two hundred miles. Its fall is over three thousand 
 feet. Dr. Robinson, Lieut. Lynch, and Gage all show its 
 fall to be over three thousand feet. As Dr. Wm. Smith is 
 such a favorite with immersionists, we prefer quoting from 
 him. In his Dictionary of the Bible, following Lynch, he 
 says, "The depression . . of the Dead Sea below the Med- 
 iterranean is 1,316.7, and 653.3 feet below Tiberias." He 
 then gives the height of the head of the Jordan above the 
 level of the Mediterranean 1,700 feet. The mouth is 1,317 
 feet below it, making the fall of the Jordan in all "a 
 
JORDAIS'. 41 
 
 height of more than three thousand feet." Divide this by 
 
 two hundred miles, and we have the average fall to the 
 
 mile fifteen feet. The actual distance is sixty miles, which 
 
 ^ divided into three thousand gives sixty feet to the mile. 
 
 /Some writers put the distance one hundred and twenty 
 
 If miles, twenty-five feet average. The upper Jordan has 
 
 more fall than the lower, where John baptized. Robinson 
 
 shows its fall where John baptized to be a little over ten 
 
 feet to the mile. The fall of the Mississippi is a little over 
 
 jive inches to the mile, yet runs from three to five miles an 
 
 hour, much as it wdnds. 
 
 Kitto says, " It becomes turbid ; . . . the water is . . . 
 always coldJ^ 
 
 Of the upper Jordan a writer in Harper, June number, 
 1870, says, "The river soon became a roaring torrenty in 
 which no boat could live." Lynch tells us they often had 
 to have their iron boats hauled around places, because so 
 dangerous, owing to the current. One iron boat perished 
 any how. The above writer of Harper says they were 
 assailed by a mob, but "the current bore the canoe along 
 too rapidly for them to keep up with it, but they cut 
 across the bend/' and thus overtook it for a moment. 
 
 Rabbi Joseph Swarz, for sixteen years a resident in the 
 Holy Land (p. 43), says, "The Jordan . . . is so rapid a 
 stream that even the best swimmer can not bathe in it 
 without endangering his life. In the neighborhood of 
 Jericho (there is where John baptized) the bathers are 
 compelled to tie themselves together with ropes, to prevent their 
 being swept away by the rapidity of the current.^ 
 
 Rev. D. A. Randall, a Baptist, who traveled in Pales- 
 tine thus writes: "According to the usual custom of vis- 
 itors, we commenced arrangements for a bath, when our 
 *■ A Descriptive Geography, etc. of Palestine. 
 
42 BAPTISM. 
 
 sheik interposed, declaring the current too swift, and that 
 it would be dangerous to enter the stream ; that a man had 
 been drowned in this very place only a few days before. 
 But we had not come so far to be thwarted in our plans 
 by trifles. Being a good swimmer, I measured the strength 
 of the current with my eye, and willing to risk it, plunged 
 in, and my companions one after another followed. We 
 found the current quite strong, so that we could not venture 
 to a great depth, but /a?- enough to accomplish our purpose 
 of a plunge bath.^^''^ W. M. Thompson, missionary in 
 Syria and Palestine twenty-five years, says of the current, 
 *^The current is astonishingly rapid. ... It required the 
 most expert swimmer to cross it, and one less skilled must 
 inevitably be carried away, as we had melancholy proof. 
 Two Christians and a Turk, who ventured too far, were 
 drowned without the possibility of rescue, and the wonder 
 is that more did not share the same fate.^f This is at the 
 place where '^ our blessed Savior was baptized.'' Some peo- 
 ple "ducked the women;" men carried their little children 
 for the same purpose, "trembling like so many lambs;'' 
 while " some had water poured on their heads in imitation 
 of the baptism of the Savior" (ibid). 
 
 Lieut. Lynch, w4io traversed the entire Jordan, and 
 whose statements none questions — indeed, he seems to be 
 an immersionist — gives us an account of his descent in 
 iron boats, one of which was destroyed by the violent cur- 
 rent dashing it to pieces against obstacles: "The shores 
 (seemed) to flit by us. With its tumultuous rush the river 
 hurried us onward, and we knew not what the next mo- 
 ment would bring forth — whether it would dash us upon 
 
 *The Handwriting of God, or . . . the Holy Land, Part II, 
 pp. 233-4. 
 
 t The Land and the Book, or the Holy Land, by W. M. Thompson, 
 D.D.,vol. 2, pp. 4-15-6. 
 
JOEDAN. 43 
 
 a roch, or plunge us down a cataract^' (p. 255). Tins was 
 the lower Jordan, where John baptized. They arrived at 
 El Meshra, where John baptized. The banks are ten feet 
 high, save at the ford, and the water is suddenly deep. 
 Here he moralizes how 'Hhe Deity, veiled in flesh, de- 
 scended the bank, . . . and the impetuous river, in grateful 
 homage, must have stayed its course, and gently laved the 
 body of its Lord" (p. 256). When pilgrims came to 
 bathe, he anchored below them, "to be in readiness to ren- 
 der assistance should any of the crowd be swept down by 
 the current, and in danger of drowning, . . . accidents, it 
 is said, occurring every year'^ (pp. 261, 265). 
 
 They went on and soon passed '^a camel in the river, 
 washed down by the current in attempting to cross the 
 ford last night" (p. 266). In five minutes they "passed 
 another camel in the river, the poor beast leaning exhausted 
 against the bank, and his owner seated despondingly above 
 him. We could not help him!^^ (p. 266). Abridged Work, 
 p. 170. 
 
 Immersion is absurd in the light of these facts. The 
 facts show that, 
 
 1. John baptized not in Jordan at first, not till the 
 news of his work excited general attention, and the 
 great " multitudes " coming necessitated a place of much 
 water. Every ablution, every drink, all cooking had 
 to be with clean water. Had John been at a pond or 
 tank of water with even enough to supply all with drink- 
 ing, cooking, and cleansing waters, as well as for animals, 
 that would not have been sufficient. The moment unclean 
 people or animals, or dead bodies of any kind, should have 
 touched the water it would be unsuited for drinking, for 
 washing. Hence no place \vould have suited for John's 
 ministry when such multitudes came but a place, first, of 
 
44 BAPTISM. 
 
 plenty waiter ; second, running \Y3iteY ; for a fountain'^ or 
 " confluence of waters '^ can not become unclean. This 
 explains Jolin^s going to Jordan. When the great " mul- 
 titudes '^ ceased to come, iEnon furnished by its springs 
 enough running water for all purposes whatever. Hence, 
 2. We read (John x, 40-42), "And [Christ] went away 
 again beyond (peran) the Jordan, (eis) into the jjlace ivhere 
 John at the first baptized^ and there remained. . . . And many 
 believed on him there.^^ Christ went into the place ; abode 
 in the place where John baptized ; people believed on him 
 there. As he baptized at ^non, so at, or in^ as the local- 
 ity, the Jordan, and first " beyond Jordan.^^ 
 
 Aside from all else, the following remarks are appro- 
 priate : 
 
 1. In no case is a word said in the New Testament 
 about Jordan or iEnon and "much water '^ as the place 
 where any one was baptized in all tlie sixty -seven or sixty- 
 eight years of ajmstolic history, though "multitudes" 
 were converted (Acts v, 14; xvii, 4; and xviii, 7; ix, 42; 
 iv, 4). 
 
 2. In no case of baptism under tlie apostolic conver^s 
 do we read of into or out of the water. Only in Acts 
 viii, 38, where the deacon Philip baptized one man, is 
 that language used, they being on a journey. See the 
 case. 
 
 3. Hence, if the much water and the Jordan have to 
 be appealed to to support immersion; if in John's six 
 months' ministry people had to go so great a distance to be 
 immersed, inasmuch as in sixty-seven or sixty-eight years 
 of bajDtism under the commission that never occurs, it is 
 strong proof that the Christian dispensation was without 
 immersion. 
 
 1 Cor. X, 2 : "Our fathers were all under the cloud, and 
 
JOEDAN. 45 
 
 all passed through the sea, and were all baptized unto 
 Moses in the cloud and in the sea/^ or as Luther and 
 some versions have it, and as is equally correct with the 
 English, " with the cloud and with the sea." 
 
 It is urged by immersionists that here we have a meta- 
 phorical baptism; that the sea congealed on each side in 
 high walls ; the cloud stood over making a pavilion, and 
 as the Hebrews descended they were all shut in, envel- 
 oped by the cloud and sea, covered over, and, as it were, 
 immersed! They never say "dipped" on this occasion. 
 If the words " dip" and " immerse " are the same exactly, 
 mean the same thing in the same place, wliy not read 
 " dipped" in this case ? 
 
 1. It is not a metaphorical but a literal baptism. As 
 outward, literal baptism is never performed without contact 
 with some liquid, and water was the only liquid here, it 
 was water baptism. 
 
 2. They were not immersed in water, hence it was not 
 immersion. 
 
 3. But it is urged they were "enveloped,"^ etc. That 
 the cloud was over them while in the sea. Paul does not 
 say so. And Moses expressly says the reverse (Ex. xiv, 
 19-22). The cloud rose up, passed over them, stood be- 
 tween the two armies all that night, keeping back the 
 Egyptians. So all this assumption of a cloud over them 
 while in the sea is untrue. Wesley and otliers believe 
 that " God sent a plentiful rain by which he confirmed his 
 heritage" at that time (Ps. Ixviii, 9 ; Ixxvii, 17; Ixxviii, 
 23), and thus baptized them. Josephus, a contemporary 
 
 -•■'Since the publication of the debate I see Dr. Graves (page 392) 
 asks, " How could the descent of Israel into the Ked Sea, and their being 
 BURIED out of sight hi the cloud?" etc. "What daring imposture this! 
 lie was careful not to say that in debate ; but, like nearly all the rest, 
 slip it in unseen. 
 
46 BAPTISM. 
 
 of Paul and learned in the law and traditions of the Jews, 
 says of this occasion expressly, '^ Showers of rain also 
 came down from the sky/^* It is next to absolute cer- 
 tainty that Paul knew of, and alludes to that as a fact, 
 and denominates it baptism. 
 
 This much we know absolutely : 
 
 1. There was no immersion, no plunging into water, 
 no dipping as to the Hebrews. 
 
 2. They were all baptized with water. 
 
 3. All the hosts of Pharaoh were immersed, not one 
 of them was baptized. The Hebrew^, Greek, and Latin 
 read (Ex. xv, 1, 4, 5, 10), they were ^^ immersed'^ {tabha 
 in Hebrew; Jcatedusan in Greek; suhmersi sunt, in Latin, 
 submersed). The English reads "sank,'^ which Conant, 
 A. Campbell, Wilkes, Graves, all tell us is the English 
 of immerse. 
 
 Eom. vi, 3, 4; Col. ii, 11: " Buriechbi/ baptism into 
 death.^^ This is now regarded as the Gibralter of the 
 immersion theory. We never hear it correctly quoted in 
 popular addresses l)y them. Invariably we hear them 
 say that Paul calls baptism a burial. It is a burial. We 
 know a thing or person is not buried till completely cov- 
 ered up. Let us notice, therefore, in the outset, the 
 groundless assumptions made on this text. It is falsely 
 assumed that, 
 
 1. It is loater baptism. 
 
 2. That " buried by baptism into death '' is a literal 
 burial of the physical body, when the very words of the 
 text expose glaringly its absurdity. 
 
 3. That burial among the Romans was such an inter- 
 ment, covering over in the earth, as we in modern times 
 practice in burial in Europe and America, which Robin- 
 
 •^- Antiquities, B. 11, chap, xvi, p. 98. 
 
JORDAN. 4/ 
 
 son, their own historian^ tells tliem is not the case (page 
 550).* 
 
 4. That the " planted '^ of verse 5 implies covering up, 
 as if it were as we plant corn, potatoes, when neither of 
 these fruits of the soil was discovered till in America. 
 The ^^ planted in the likeness of his death ^^ is in the 
 Greek " born together/^ " grafted together." Was Christ's 
 death accomplished under icaterf Is there any likeness 
 between Christ's death on the cross and a dip under 
 water ? 
 
 Even the word bury in the Scripture does not necessa- 
 rily imply interment. Jer. xxii, 19 : ''He shall be buried 
 with the burial of an ass, drawn and cast forth beyond 
 the gates of Jerusalem." Jer. xxxvi, 30: "His (Jehoia- 
 kim's) dead body shall be cast out in the day to the heat, 
 
 "Eobinson says (page 55), "The first English Baptists, when they 
 read the phrase " buried in baptism." instantly thought of an English 
 burial, and therefore baptized by laying the body in the form of bury- 
 ing in their own country. But they might have observed that Paul 
 wrote to Komans, and that Eomans did not bury, but burned the dead, 
 and buried nothing of the dead but their ashes in urns; so that no fair 
 reasoning on the form of baptizing can be drawn from the mode of 
 burying the dead in England." Yet now, driven from lexicons, all 
 ancient versions, and utterly defeated on every favorite field, this meta- 
 phorical text is their last and only support from their own stand- 
 point. 
 
 1. Baptism was symbolic of innocence, purity, for fifteen hundred 
 years ; never representing burial. 
 
 2. In John's day baptism never represented burial. No one pre- 
 tends that it did. 
 
 3. Christ's commission (Matt, xxviii, 19, 20) leaves it where it ivas 
 as to mode or design — symbolic of the Spirit's work, never hinting a 
 change in its design. 
 
 4 The Acts never hint a change. Nowhere in apostolic use does 
 any pretend that it symbolized death, burial, or resurrection. 
 
 5. Hence it is infinitely absurd to select a highly metaphorical text, 
 giving it a meaning that has no foundation in any previous history, nor 
 in a single literal text in the Bible, as an argument. 
 
48 BAPTISM. 
 
 and in the night to the frost.'' This was called burying 
 with the burial of an ass — left on top of the ground a 
 prey to weather and animals. The verb here rendered 
 ^^bury'' (thapto) is rendered ^^embalmed^^ in Genesis 1, 26; 
 xlix, 30, 31; 1, 2, 7, and its noun "embalmers^' or "phy- 
 sicians'' who embalmed. The word is employed in 
 Greek where the dead are laid on piles of wood to be 
 burned, on scaffolds to be consumed by the elements. It 
 does not necessarily imply interment. 
 
 5. But Wesley, * A. Clarke, etc. say it refers " to the 
 ancient practice of baptizing by immersion." But as an 
 offset we reply, M. Stuart, Hodge, and Beza, in their com- 
 mentaries, as well as others, reject this view, and main- 
 tain it is not water baptism, not immersion, there alluded 
 to, but spiritual baptism. 
 
 6. Worse still for immersion. No Christian father of 
 the first three hundred years cites that as water baptism. 
 Oi'igen, the father of commentators, born only eighty- 
 three years after John's death and the most learned 
 scholar of the church for sixteen hundred years, main- 
 tains it elaborately as spiritual baptism. Not till super- 
 stition and idolatry had prostituted water baptism into 
 a hideous and frightful monstrosity was this held to be 
 water baptism. 
 
 7. Even Dr. Wilkes, usually a very careful man in 
 
 his statements compared with others of that side, says, 
 
 "Now, here is a baptism. It is declared to be a burial. 
 
 It is also declared that we are ' raised up ' again" (Lou. 
 
 Debate, p. 602, after quoting Rom. vi, 3, 4). Notice the 
 
 * In Louisville debate I copied an edition of Wesley's Notes that 
 liad not the words "by immersion" in Romans vi, 4. But I find no 
 other copy that leaves it ofi"; besides, it is evident from his note on 
 Colossians ii, 12, as well as the words on Romans vi, 4, found in him, 
 that this one edition is changed, and "by immersion '' were his words. 
 
JORDAN. 49 
 
 blunders here made: First, it is not called or declared 
 to be a burial. The burial is not the baptism, but the 
 spiritual effect of the baptism; second, it is not "de- 
 clared that we are ^raised up' again.'' No such words 
 occur in that text. He cites them with quotation-marks 
 as if there. Christ was " raised up from the dead/^ not 
 from water, and our part is, " we should walk in new- 
 ness of life (verse 4). We avalk in newness of life 
 IN OUR BURIED CONDITION. Hcucc it is not Under water, 
 but to be "delivered, baptized, buried by baptism into 
 death " — " our lives hid with Christ in God." 
 
 8. Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 116) says, "The phrase 
 ^planted in the likeness of death' is, if possible, still 
 stronger [i. e. than buried by baptism into death]. 
 What is the likeness of death? A burial is the likeness 
 of death, and the only likeness of death." (Italics his.) 
 
 1. Here the doctor misquoted the passage, leaving out 
 " his " before death, and makes it read " planted in the 
 likeness of death " generally instead of likeness of " his 
 death," which was by crueifixiony hanging on a cross. 
 Where is there a likeness between a dip under the water 
 and dying on a cross? 
 
 2. He makes this word "planted together " imply moc?a/ 
 action, as people now plant corn, potatoes, and such other 
 things as they "cover up!" Does he not know that 
 "plant" in the English Bible never so applies? That 
 trees, vineyards, etc. are " planted," but in no case " cov- 
 ered up?" 
 
 The word in Romans vi, 5, which he thinks is stronger 
 than "buried by baptism into death" is sumphutoi, from 
 sumphuo, born, engraft, planted, grow together. Ander- 
 son, immersionist, renders it in this place " united to- 
 gether in the likeness of his death." In no case is it 
 4 
 
50 BAPTISM. 
 
 modal. If it were it is utterly destructive of immersion, 
 as Christ's death was not under water^ but hanging on 
 a cross. 
 
 10. It can not be too strongly emphasized that any doc- 
 trine or view of Scripture that is supported by men's views 
 of the most highly-wrought metaphors and by these alone, 
 and only two such — they the same in substance — in all 
 the Bible, without any literal verse any where, with no 
 plain, historic record to give explanation or direction — we 
 repeat, such a w^ay of interpreting the Bible is so absurd, 
 so pernicious, so destructive of all processes of discover- 
 ing truth, that it is never allowed in law, never allowed 
 in science, and never tolerated in the study of divinity, 
 save by the most distempered partisanship and intolerable 
 bigotry. 
 
 The '^ buried by baptism into death '' is the efect of the 
 '^baptized into Jesus Christ" of verse 3. The ^Mjuried 
 into death'' is not the baptism, but the effect of the bap- 
 tism. ^^ Therefore we are buried by the baptism," so the 
 Greek reads, ^4nto death," i. e. to sin. The "buried" is 
 the same as "crucified" (verse G), as "grafted together 
 in the likeness of his death" (verse 5) ; the same as ^^cir- 
 cumcised with the circumcision made without hands, . . . 
 buried with him by baptism into death" — not into Ava- 
 tcr (Col. ii, 11, 12). The parties are raised, as Anderson, 
 Wesley, and others have it, "by your faith in the energy 
 of God" — not by the arm of the minister, as in immer- 
 sion. 
 
 12. Again, this buried condition is given by Paul as 
 evidence that all who are in it ^^ are dead to sin," "cruci- 
 fied with Christ," " grafted together in the likeness of his 
 death," "freed from sin," etc. But no one believes that 
 water baptism is proof that we "are dead to sin," etc. 
 
JORDAN. 51 
 
 The apostles never appeal to vv^ater baptism as proof of 
 ^' death to siii/^ Hence it can not be water baptism.* 
 
 Wesley, Clarke, and the writers of modern times who 
 agree with them mainly held proselyte baptism to be the 
 baptism referred to; but immersionists unanimously hold 
 that it came in later, and so reject the groundwork of 
 Wesley^s and Clarke^s views. All those taking the im- 
 mersion view translate "are" by "were buried.'^ But, 
 
 1. All standards on Greek grammar are against this, as 
 I abundantly show in the Louisville debate. 
 
 2. All ancient versions are against it. 
 
 3. By this change we have Paul saying, to be consist- 
 ent, "we were dead to sin,'^ but are not so now, but "con- 
 tinue in sin;" "our old man loas crucified," but is not so 
 now; "he that was dead loas freed from sin;" "for you 
 loere dead, and your life was hid with Christ in God" 
 (Col. ii, 12; iii, 3).t 
 
 It should be remarked that, 
 
 1. No standard lexicon ever renders haptidzo by "bury." 
 
 2. The very few inferior ones that give it put it as a re- 
 mote, metaphorical meaning. 
 
 3. Immersionists sometimes dare render the ohruo — 
 "overwhelm" of the lexicons — by bury, so reckless are 
 they. 
 
 * For many other arguments and an elaborate defense of the jjresent 
 tense of Eoinans vi, 4, in English, see Louisville Debate, Wilkes-Ditzler, 
 pp. 644-648. In that, Winer, p. 217; Jelf, vol. 2, pp. 66, 67; Kuhner, 
 Gram. 346-7, and all authorities support our present version in the 
 tense " are buried." 
 
 t Since I obtained Origen's Works ( nine volumes folio ) I was 
 pleased to find that he cited all the texts I had cited in the Louisville 
 debate — "I die daily;" ''Always bearing about in our body the dying 
 of our Lord," etc. (2 Cor. iv, 10) ; " We who live are always delivered eis 
 (into) death" — as the same as Komans vi, 4; Colossians ii, 12: "Always 
 delivered; " " are buried by baptism into death ; " "to sin; " "our lives 
 arc hid with Christ," etc. 
 
52 BAPTISM. 
 
 John iii, 5, is quoted to support immersion, as if emerg- 
 ence out of the element was implied. It is here assumed, 
 
 1. That this is water baptism. It was not held to be 
 water baptism by any writer we have ever met of the first 
 three centuries ; yet we have thought it did allude to water 
 baptism, but never to Christian baptism. 
 
 2. The Jews were accustomed to say, ^^ born of circum- 
 cision^' (Lightfoot's Horse Heb. et Tal.). Did they emerge 
 out of circumcision ? 
 
 3. There is nothing modal in the Greek word here used. 
 It implies no more than to be impressed, influenced to the 
 extent of change. "I have begotten you'' is the same 
 word. It is often rendered "begotten" by A. Campbell, 
 Anderson, and all immersionist translators. Hence, 
 
 4. It reads "born of water and of the Sjnrit.'^ Does 
 "born of the Spirit" in the same sentence imply "emerg- 
 ence" out of the Spirit? Surely not, bnt to receive the 
 Spirit poured out upon them. 
 
 As imraersionists cling so desperately now to John's 
 baptism, we must notice the use they make of en in con- 
 nection with the water. It is common to all, from Carson 
 or Gale to Dr. Graves and Wilkes, to insist that en necessa- 
 rily involves the idea not of instrumentality, — ^^with water," 
 but " in water." Hence we have produced a vast array of 
 texts never produced before on this subject. 
 
 In the Greek from the Hebrew, 6' or v^ ^^ with,^ we 
 have the expression scores of times in the laws of Moses, 
 in every instance of which save two (unless I missed in 
 count, and I was careful) the expression wash icith water, 
 rendered " bathe in water " sometimes in James's version, 
 is simply hudati — icith water. The en (^v) which the im- 
 mersionists render "m" does not occur save in two in- 
 stances. In other places the en occurs, clearly indicating. 
 
JOEDAN. 53 
 
 like the Hebrew preposition he, instrumentality — with. 
 Ezek. xvi, 9 : ^' I have washed thee {en) loith water/^ If 
 one shall say the "en" in that case points to immersion, we 
 reply, first, the verse refutes that. " Then washed I thee 
 with (en) water ; yea, I thoi^oughly ivashed away thy blood 
 from thee, and I anointed thee (en) with oiV This language 
 clearly imports that the water is applied to the person. It 
 is figurative of course ; but, second, the with (en) oil settles 
 the force of en to be with. The oil is poured on the party 
 anointed. Yet en expresses it — with oil.* Half of the 
 New Testament references in the common text use en, one 
 half do not. In the places where en is used, the versions, 
 like the Vulgate and Luther, have it with water. So 
 Isaiah iv, 4 : God will '^ purge away the filth of the daugh- 
 ters of Jerusalem, en with (or by) the spirit of burning.'^ 
 
 In the books of Moses, in the Greek, en occurs forty- 
 one times from Exodus xxix, 2, 4, etc. to Numbers xxxv, 
 25, en elaio — "with oil;" not once is it simply elaio where 
 the oil is poured on the parties. 
 
 In Leviticus xiv, 51, "And [shall 2Jererranei~\ sprinkle 
 with them^' [en autois in the LXX, used by the apostles — 
 the hyssop, blood, etc.] upon " the house seven times" 
 (verse 52). "And he shall cleanse the house (en) en to haimati 
 [kv TO) atixari] WITH the blood of the bird, and (en) with the 
 running [living] water \_h toj udavc], and (en) with the liv- 
 ing bird, and (en) with the cedar- wood, and (en) with 
 the hyssop, and (en) with the scarlet." Here consecu- 
 tively seven times en occurs in the Greek Scriptures, used 
 by the apostles and early Christians indicating instrumen- 
 tality every time — is repeated before every noun, meaning 
 with each time, as none will question. The house was 
 
 ••■ The same force of en (kv) is seen in Exodus xiii, 9 ; Revelation xiv, 
 15; vi, 5; Isaiah iv, 4; 1 John v, 6; and many other places. 
 
54 BAPTISM. 
 
 sprinkled with blood, with water, and en is used for the 
 ^^ with '^ EVERY time. In Exodus xii, 9, " sodden {en hudati) 
 with water.'' 1 Kings xviii, 4 : "And fed them [the one 
 hundred prophets in caves by fifties] en, with bread and 
 water" (verse 13), en, "with bread and water.'' 
 
 Ezek. xvi, 4: "In the day thou wast born, neither wast 
 thou washed (en hudati) with water." 
 
 Often to see " with the eyes " is expressed by en ophthal- 
 mois. So Ezek. xl, 4; 2 Kings xxii, 20; Zech. ix, 8; 
 Sirach xxxv, 7 ; li, 35. " With power," is expressed by 
 en dunamel repeatedly (Acts iv, 7, etc.) ; with the voice, en 
 phonae, often (2 Sam. xv, 25 ; 2 Kings viii, 56 (55 Gr.) ; 
 xviii, 27). 
 
 In 1 Chronicles xv, 25, "with (cv) en, shouting, and 
 (en) with sound of the cornet, and (en) ivith trumpets, and 
 (en) v-ith cymbals, and (en) with psalteries," etc. In the 
 Greek the en, with, occurs six times in that one verse as 
 here for with. So 2 Chronicles xv, 14, it occurs three 
 times for loith — " with a loud voice (en), with (en) trump- 
 ets," etc. 
 
 Cases could be multiplied indefinitely,* but these are 
 more than are needed. 
 
 But our advantage is greater still. While the inferior 
 Greek texts somewhat divide the case in the New Testa- 
 ment between the cases where en occurs with hudati, wa- 
 ter, and simply hudati as dative of instrument, Avith water, 
 the great modern scholars Tregelles, Tischendorf, Alford, 
 etc., give us a far more correct Greek text with the en 
 thrown out of Mark i, 8, also giving us Luke iii, 11, 16; 
 Mark i, 8; Acts 1, 5; xi, 15, 16, against Matt, iii, 11; 
 John i, 33, etc. — two Avho have en, and that en the facts just 
 
 ■*See e. g. Genesis xlix, 11; 2 Samuel xiii, 22; 2 Peter ii, 16; 
 1 Thessalonians iv, 10. 
 
JORDAX. 05 
 
 given show means ivith. Above all we have already seen 
 that the mode was given — baptized with the Spirit sent 
 down from above, poured upon them. 
 
 DECENCY HEALTH — CONVENIENCE. 
 
 These questions are gravely discussed by Elder P. H. 
 Mell, " Professor of Greek and Latin in Mercer Univer- 
 sity, Georgia/' in a reply to Dr. Summers's Treatise on 
 Baptism, pages 163-169. There are some facts to which 
 we call their attention who favor immersion : 
 
 1. Immersionists wear suits of clothes made of India 
 rubber and other w*ater-proof materials to protect them- 
 selves when immersing candidates. Such suits are adver- 
 tised for sale. 
 
 2. Suits of clothes are specially made for parties to be 
 immersed, advertised as such, on questions of decency — 
 designed to guard against indecencies in the act of im- 
 mersion. 
 
 3. Baptisteries in such comparatively mild climates as 
 Northern Kentucky, Ohio, Illinois, etc., have furnaces 
 made under them to ivarm the vmter to guard against ill 
 health, suffering, and discomfort. 
 
 4. In some cases in the same latitude the baptistery 
 adjoins rooms that have special conveniences for warming 
 and affording the immersed parties the means of changing 
 clothes at once and without risk to health as well as im- 
 proper exposure to gaze. 
 
 5. In one leading immersion church, corner of Fourth 
 and Walnut (" Campbellite "), Louisville, Ky., screens exist 
 to guard ladies from the sight of the audience while de- 
 scending into the water, which are run back out of the way 
 as soon as the lady is well fixed in the water to undergo 
 
56 BAPTISM. 
 
 immersion. The screens are run back between her and 
 the audience as soon as she is dipped, so that she can not 
 be seen as she ascends out of the baptistery. 
 
 6. Is not this admission of the weight of all the charges 
 brought ? Is it not an advertisement of the fact that intel- 
 ligent immersionists regard it as unhealthy, dangerous, in- 
 decent in appearance and also impraGticable in a large part 
 of the globe? 
 
 7. If warm rooms, furnace-furnished baptisteries, water- 
 proof clothes for administrators, special suits for candidates 
 be necessary in such latitudes as Louisville and Paris, Ky., 
 Cincinnati, Chicago, and other cities, what of the regions 
 in Northern Canada, Greenland, and various regions where 
 it would take enough oil to support half a colony for 
 months to make fire enough to melt ice enough to im- 
 merse one person, and he or she most certainly freeze to 
 death before such candidate could be dressed and warmed ? 
 Is the gospel to be excluded forever from such latitudes? 
 Without coal or wood, perpetual ice around them, in other 
 less northerly regions so cold and chilly as that death is 
 almost certain unless good furnaces were active under the 
 baptistery and warmed houses adjoining, I can not see how 
 any one can make immersion, as the one only mode, com- 
 patible with the teaching and spirit of the New Testament. 
 In a large part of the world it is utterly impossible — in 
 larger regions impracticable. 
 
 8. A person immersed in filthy water, in mere filthy 
 ponds, is not baptized at all. "Having our bodies washed 
 with PURE water" (Heb. x, 22) does not mean filthy water. 
 
BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAVEE. 57 
 
 CHAPTER VII. 
 
 Baptism Out of the Layer. 
 
 The most perfect historic record of baptism that we have 
 is that of the ancient Jews. It is that of the laver. Here 
 we have a record — a history. It runs through fifteen hun- 
 dred years. The data are most abundant. If we fail to 
 get light from such a record, with such a vast literature, 
 inspired and uninspired, encircling it, we may well despair 
 of understanding the matter altogether. 
 
 In this, the origin of symbolic baptism as a divine 
 rite, commanded by Jehovah and performed by his peo- 
 ple, we may clearly see the design and correct the many 
 abuses of baptism. We can clearly see that it was sym- 
 bolic, but not of death, of burial, of resurrection ; not a 
 door into the church ; not an initiatory rite ; not for remis- 
 sion of sins ; not really sacramental. 
 
 In Exodus XXX, 18-21, we read of the laver that stood 
 
 between the altar of burnt offerings and the door of the 
 
 tabernacle. "Aaron and his sons shall wash (ixichats) 
 
 their hands and their feet \_eh, Heb. min\ out of it.^'^ "And 
 
 when they go into the tabernacle of the congregation, they 
 
 shall wash with water, that they die not." " Thou shalt 
 
 bring Aaron and his sons to the door of the tabernacle of 
 
 the congregation, and ivash them with water (Ex. xl, 12). 
 
 "* Exodus XXX, 18-21: Rachats; Greek, Koi, vitperac e^ avrov; xl, 30, 
 viTTTiovTat e^ avTov; verse 31, kviTrreTac k^ avrov. This is carelessly ren- 
 dered in James's version " thereat " for " out of it." 
 
58 BAPTISM. 
 
 Of the laver (verse 3) : '^And put water therein to wash 
 (ek) out of it.^^ " Moses, and Aaron and his sons, washed 
 their hands and their feet out of it (ek).^^ 
 
 In the first hiver was water for washing both the Le- 
 vites and the sacrificial meats. In the later laver, separate 
 ones were made for washing the meats. The first time 
 tliese baptisms were carried out is in Leviticus viii, 4-6, 
 where Moses brought Aaron and his sons to the door of 
 the tabernacle, according to the above commands, and 
 washed them with water. 
 
 1. We are all aQ:reed that these laver washino-s were 
 baptisms.* We have no dispute here. It is a unanimous 
 agreement of both sides. In Hebrews ix, 10, Paul tells 
 of the tabernacle services that "stood in meats and drinks, 
 and divers baptisms'^ — "divers washings" in our version. 
 All immersionists refer these to the washings of the laver 
 and other like washings. Fuller, Gale, Hinton, Carson, 
 A. Campbell, Judd, Ingham, Graves, Wilkes, all assert 
 they were immersions, baptisms. Judith xii, 7 : " Washed 
 herself [baptized herself] at the fountain of water.'' f 
 Sirach (Ecclesiasticus, apocryphal) xxvi, 31 (some copies 
 verses 31, 30): "He that baptizes himself from [touch- 
 ing] a dead body, if he touch it again, what is he prof- 
 ited by his washing?'' Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38, ap- 
 ply haptidzo to the daily washings of the Jews. So do 
 many other Greek and Hebrew writers. Hence there ip 
 'no controversy here. 
 
 A. Campbell's language will represent them fully on 
 the main issue. "And the laver filled with water. . . . 
 In this laver . . . the priests always washed themselves 
 
 * In Hebrew expressed by rachats; v'nrru, Xovu, etc. in Greek. 
 
 'I EBaTTTi^ETo . . . ETTi T?jo TTTjvTjo Tov v6aT0G. Conant tells US the Syriac 
 reads ''immersed" etc. This is utterly untrue. It is aynad, wash. See 
 on Syriac Version', amad, Chapter XXIV. 
 
BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAYER. 59 
 
 before they approached the sanctuary. '^ ^^This vessel 
 ^vas called in Greek loutaer, and the water in it loutron. 
 . . . Paul more than once alludes to this usage in the 
 tabernacle in his epistles, and once substitutes Christian 
 immersion in its place. ^^ ^^ Again, '^The divers washings 
 [baptismois] of cups, etc. and things mentioned f among 
 the traditions of the elders, and the institutions of the 
 laver were for ceremonial cleansing. Hence all by immer- 
 sion.^^ X Let it be noted here how explicitly he states the 
 design of baptism as on^ma% instituted — "ceremonial 
 
 CLEANSING.^^ 
 
 The learned Baptist, Dr. Gale, elaborates the same 
 thing (Reflections on Wall, vol. 2, p. 101, of WalPs His- 
 tory of Infant Baptism), urging that rachats "1 think 
 always, including dipping," — tells of this laver, cites 
 2 Chronicles iv, 6, on it, and insists that they dij^i^ed in 
 it — immersed. 
 
 2. The next point is to determine tlie mode of these 
 baptisms that ran through fifteen hundred years of daily 
 and hourly occurrence. Immersionists say they immersed 
 themselves in the laver. We deny this, and for the fol- 
 lowing insurmountable reasons : 
 
 First. By the original command, already cited from 
 Exodus, they were to wash, not in, but (e^) '^out of it.'' 
 
 * Chris. Baptist, vol. 5, 401. 
 
 t Chris. Baptism, 167 ; Dr. Brents's Gospel Plan, 338-9, same in 
 substance. A. Campbell cites the washings of persons in Leviticus xv 
 andxvi entire, thus: In Leviticus xv, 5, 8, 10, 11, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 
 27. Here are ten divers bathings etc. Also Leviticus xvi, 26, 27 ; 
 xvii, 15, 16. Also in Numbers xix, 7, 8, 19. He has it " sixteen different 
 bathings." " These are therefore called by Paul divers baptisms, or 
 baptisms on divers occasions " ! ! Chris. Baptism, 174, 177. Did mortal 
 ever read such interpretations ? 
 
 i It hardly deserves comment when a man tells us the Greek dia- 
 phorois refers to different occasions. It means always different in kind 
 — diverse. 
 
60 BAPTISM. 
 
 The words (min, ek) in Hebrew and Greek are repeated 
 over and again by the sacred writer. 
 
 Second. In every place in the Pentateuch where they 
 were to wash in connection with the laver, it was either 
 said ^^ wash out of it/^ or simply " wash with water." * 
 
 Third. If any thing in all the Bible is clearly and re- 
 peatedly stated it is that if any thing or person needed 
 ceremonial clean shig from defilement, needed baptism, in 
 every case where such person or thing touched a person 
 or object it was defiled. If he touched water in any ves- 
 sel it could not be used. If the unclean touched water, 
 unless a fountain or confluence of running waters, the 
 water became unclean, and could not be used for drink- 
 ing, cooking, washing meats, or any thing (Lev. xi, 29- 
 36). If water in a vessel was touched by an unclean 
 object the vessel, if of earthen matter, was to be broken ; 
 if of wood, it must be rinsed out with water; if of metal- 
 lic substance to endure fire, it must be burned out and 
 sprinkled with water, and not used for seven days.f 
 
 * 'Nlferai vdart. In all the five books of Moses I found en, ev, only 
 named once with wash with water. We have seen its force already in 
 such connections. 
 
 t "These also shall be unclean unto you among the creeping things that 
 creep upon the earth ; the weasel, and the mouse, and the tortoise after 
 his kind. And the ferret, and the chameleon, and the lizard, and the 
 snail, and the mole. These are unclean to you among all that creep: 
 whosoever doth touch them, when they be dead, shall be unclean until 
 the even. And upon whatsoever any of them, when they are dead, 
 doth fall, it shall be unclean ; whether it be any vessel of wood, or rai- 
 ment, or skin, or sack, whatsoever vessel It be, wherein ajii/ work is done, 
 it must be put into water, and it shall be unclean until the even ; so it 
 shall be cleansed. And every earthen vessel, whereinto any of them 
 ftilleth, whatsoever is in it shall be unclean : and ye shall break it. Of 
 all meat which may be eaten, that on Avhich such water cometh shall be 
 unclean ; and all the drink that may be drunk in every such vessel shall 
 be unclean. And every thiny whereupon aiiy pai't of their carcass fall- 
 eth shall be unclean ; whether it be oven, or ranges for pots, they shall 
 
BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAYER. 61 
 
 " Whatsoever the unclean person toucheth shall be un- 
 clean/' " He that toucheth the water of separation shall 
 be unclean until even/' '^ Whatsoever is in " any vessel 
 wherein any unclean thing falleth " shall be unclean." 
 
 Hence we have the plain Bible record for it that if 
 any person needing ceremonial cleansing had dipped even 
 his fingers or hand in the laver, or into any vessel of 
 water, the water would be unclean, have to be thrown 
 away, and the vessel broken if of earthen matter, burnt 
 out if able to endure the fire. 
 
 The ancient rabbins are full of additions to all this, so 
 carefnl were they of outward ceremonies. In washing 
 the hands, " If, therefore, the waters that went above the 
 juncture (of the hand) return upon the hands, they are 
 unclean.''* If the return of the water that had touched 
 other parts than the hand, by returning U23on the hand 
 defiled it again, how much more would immersion of 
 the whole unclean person in the laver? And one after 
 another would certainly not mitigate the matter. 
 
 Fourth. The laver in Solomon's temple for these 
 washings was cast at the fords of Jordan, placed in the 
 temple (1 Kings vii, 23; 2 Chron. iv, 2-8), and was of 
 great size, viz. ten cubits in diameter, five cubits deep — 
 i. e. eight feet nine inches, and held water enough, accord- 
 ing to Josephus, to make three hundred and seventy-five 
 forty-gallon barrels of water. According to Dr. Gale it 
 held nearly a thousand of our barrels of water. It was 
 placed upon twelve molten oxen, which made it twenty- 
 be broken down ; for they are unclean, and shall be unclean unto you. 
 Nevertheless a fountain or pit, ^vhei^ein there is plenty of water, shall be 
 clean; but that which toucheth their carcass shall be unclean." Lev. xi, 
 29-36. Num. xxxi, 23, 24; xix, 21, 22; Lev. xv and xvi; vi, 28; vii, 
 18-21. All these uncleannesses required baptism. Lev. xi, 26. 
 
 -■• Lightfoot, Horse Heb. et Tal., II, 417; Alsop, 38; and many like 
 cases given. 
 
62 BAPTISM. 
 
 one feet from the level of the floor to the top of the 
 laver. * The water was brought in aqueducts under 
 ground some four miles from a distant fountain, and 
 made to rise up through the hollow pedestal into the 
 basin, and then there were, first two, later twelve cocks 
 at the basis out of which the water ran, at which the 
 priests baptized. The laver was thus made twenty-one 
 feet high to keep any unclean person from touching the 
 water by which it would be defiled. 
 
 If a person got into the vessel, then, he had, 1. To vio- 
 late the express precept to "wash out of it; 2. He would 
 violate all the facts in Leviticus and Numbers cited about 
 not using defiled water; 3. Tie would violate the repeated 
 precepts of the rabbins, who taught it " was better to die 
 of thirst than disobey" the laws of rabbins. Lightfoot 
 gives us many such facts; 4. He would have to leap twenty- 
 one fed high to get to the top; 5. When in the vessel he 
 would have to swim or drown, as it "contained" the 
 amount of water named in 2 Chronicles iv; 6. He would 
 have to leap down twenty-one feet on the solid stone pave- 
 ment ; 7. The vessel would then have to be emptied of all 
 its water, burnt out, and cleansed for seven days before it 
 could be used. All this is involved by the immersion the- 
 ory; 8. All this must be done in the presence of multitudes 
 of men and women — of course the clothes retained on the 
 person. 
 
 "The basis of it [the laver] was so contrived as to re- 
 ceive the water which ran out of the laver at certain 
 spouts. At these spouts the priests washed their hands 
 and their feet before they entered upon their ministry; for 
 if they had put their hands and feet into the laver the 
 
 "••■ In the Louisville debate I thought it by shortest measure fourteen 
 feet. Walton shows it was twenty-one feet. 
 
BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAYER. 63 
 
 water would have been defiled by the first that washed 
 therein. And the sea of brass made by Solomon was so 
 high that they could not put their feet into it. The Tal- 
 mudists tell us there were twelve spouts or cocks, in the 
 form of a woman^s breast, to let the water out of the la- 
 ver/^* etc. The mode of washing the meat out of the 
 laver is given — ^Hhat on which such water cometh^' 
 (Lev. xi, 34). 
 
 Fifth. Joseph us, who lived in the apostolic age, was a 
 high-priest of vast learning and candor, and baptized daily 
 himself at the laver. He interchanges icash and sprinkle 
 in speaking of the laver. '^The sea to be for the washing 
 of the hands and the feet of the priests.'^ '^ Whence the 
 priests might wash their hands and sjjrinhle their jeetP 
 '"' When he [Moses] had sprinkled Aaron's vestments, 
 himself and his sons. '' f He washed Aaron and his sons. 
 
 Sixth. The Bible habitually speaks of a person being 
 washed, just as we and all people do who wash only a given 
 part of the body. John xiii, 5-10, records where Christ 
 washed the disciples' feet, yet said, "If I wash tliee not," 
 " He that is washed." In Matthew xxvi, 6-12, anointing 
 the head with oil was done " to my body." Numbers viii, 7, 
 applies the phrase "whole body;" in Greek (/rav ro o-a>//.a), 
 to the face. So Job ix, 30. Hence (John ii, 6) the jars of 
 water were for the purification of the Jews — washing. But 
 did they immerse in those little water-pots and violate all 
 their laws on purification at the same time? 
 
 Seventh. The Targum of Jonathan, being a paraphrase 
 and not literal, like those of Onkelos and Ben Uzziai, 
 
 •==■• Brown's Antiquities, II, 189-141; Kitto's Cyclo., Art. Laver; 
 Eneyclo. Eel. Knowledge, old edition, with pictures of it, and water 
 running out for washing; Walton's immense picture of it, vol. \, 
 Polyglott. 
 
 t Antiquities, vol. 8, chap. 8, sees. 5, 6; vol. 3, chap. 6, sec. 2. 
 
64 BAPTISM. 
 
 shows the same truth on this question. On Exodus xxx, 
 19, where they were to ^Svash out of it/' he has it, "They 
 shall take for a washing of purification out of it,^^ and 
 Aaron and his sons shall sanctify (kadosh) with the waters 
 their hands and feet." Again, " And put therein living 
 waters for sanctifying, so that they should not fail nor be- 
 come dead all days'' — forever. "And Moses and Aaron 
 and his sons received (nasab) out of it [water] for washing, 
 and sanctified their hands and their feet out of if' {min- 
 yeah). 
 
 Eighth. That is not all. In Christ's day, in addition to 
 all these requirements — baptizing every time they touched 
 a dead body, an unclean animal, or one who had touched 
 the unclean or entered the house where the dead were — 
 Mark vii, 3, 4; Luke xi, 38, and all Talmudic Avriters show 
 that "all the Jews" as well as "the Pharisees" baptized 
 every time they came from the market-place — public 
 square of the city. A. Campbell, Anderson, and the Bap- 
 tists translate Mark vii, 4, immerse. It is wash in our 
 version. We ask immersionists how these Jews, in a coun- 
 try so destitute of water as Palestine is from three to five 
 months in every year, more or less, obtained water sufficient 
 for such constant immersions? They tell us, then, of cis- 
 terns twenty-two feet deep, sixteen feet wide, in some cases 
 hewn out of solid rocks, in which water is kept for the dry 
 seasons. Very well. But did they immerse their entire 
 bodies in these cisterns? Here is a family of ten — hus- 
 band and wife and eight sons and daughters. They bap- 
 tized their various pieces of table furniture (verses 4, 8) 
 as well as their "beds'' Mr. Wilkes (Louisville Debate) 
 and Dr. Graves, A. Campbell, Gale, and Carson, and Ing- 
 
 *Sirach xxx, 1, 30: (iaivTi^ofievoa airb vek^ov k. r. 1. with the "wash" 
 of Numbers xix ; Leviticus xi, 29-36 ; xv ; xvi entire ; etc. 
 
BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAYER. 65 
 
 ham quote Maimonides, where they baptize their beds, in 
 his day ''part by part/' These families often have five, 
 ten, twenty, thirty servants, all of whom have to baptize 
 every day from once to three or four times. Now who 
 believes they all immersed themselves daily — men, women, 
 male and female servants, ten to twenty — in the cistern of 
 water out of which they daily drank, took water for cook- 
 ing, etc.? Then they baptized their furniture and beds. 
 Who believes they immersed these beds, couches, etc. daily 
 in the cistern, and still repeated it daily for three months, 
 yet daily used the water for drinking, cooking, etc.? But 
 you have to believe it to hold on to the immersion theory. 
 But you know it is not true. Aside from the repeated 
 laws already quoted decency tells us it is not true. Jews 
 so doubly nice they would not allow themselves in 
 Christ's day to touch a gentile or one unclean if possible 
 to avoid it, and would not go in where Christ was being 
 tried lest they by contact be defiled — they drink water 
 thus used ! ! Yet the immersion theory says they did ! ! 
 No, sir; they all baptized by aifnsion. Now, then, the 
 laver baptism extended through fifteen hundred years. 
 Every Jew baptized every day, often several times. They 
 generally numbered five and six millions. Let us put it 
 at the loivest figure. Fifteen hundred years, three hundred 
 and sixty -five days in a year, make five hundred and 
 forty-seven thousand five hundred days. Then multiply 
 those days upon the number of Jews ; put them at /oiir mil- 
 lions on the average for fifteen hundred years — from Moses 
 till the commission was given — we have one trillion 
 
 SIX HUNDRED AND FORTY-FIVE BILLIONS FIVE HUNDRED 
 
 MILLIONS (1,645,500,000,000) of instances of baptism, all 
 BY AFFUSION, when John began to baptize Jews as a Jew- 
 that Christ might be made manifest to Israel. We can 
 5 
 
66 BAPTISM. 
 
 now all see the force of '^ baptize with toater.^' Now, then, 
 at first we saw that John, when only the few as yet came — 
 no noise, no multitude yet named — the baptisms at Beth- 
 any were so noiselessly carried on that it is only named 
 by one writer, and then incidentally; so not a word is said 
 of multitudes at JEnon — the noise and flush of the crowds 
 are all over. At Jordan we have the multitudes (Mark i, 
 5; Matt, iii, 5) — 'Hhey at Jerusalem,^' as well as "all Ju- 
 dea,'' etc. Now why did he go to those three places, 
 at two of which were running waters, we know, and plenty 
 of it at the first one ? Avhen so few as yet came — no allu- 
 sion is made to water at all — at Bethany or in Bethany 
 simply. 
 
 1. Such crowds, with all their animals, had to have, must 
 have water. Round-lake Camp-meeting is not there be- 
 cause of convenient places to immerse. Camp-meetings, 
 armies encamped for a jew weeks, have to have much water. 
 Here are thousands of people for many weeks, some months. 
 Then much water was needed. But, 
 
 2. That much water had to be running water by the law 
 of God. We cited many passages, especially Leviticus xi, 
 38, showing that fountains — so the Syriac and Arabic ren- 
 der ^non — or "gathering together, flow^ing together" of 
 waters coidd not be defiled, because running oif constantly, 
 and fresh clean water coming into their place. If it had 
 been even a convenient lake one hundred feet square and 
 fifty deep in the middle, the moment one washed in it, or 
 an unclean animal, person, or thing fell into it or stepped 
 into it, or water running from your hands or face after 
 ablution had fallen into it, it could not be used. But such 
 crowds had to have water, use it for all customary pur- 
 poses. Hence the running waters of the Jordan were 
 soueht. 
 
BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAYER. 67 
 
 The moment the flush of the crowds is over John 
 leaves the hot, low region of lower Jordan — the lowest 
 spot above water on our globe, deep between ranges of 
 hills, in about the latitude of Memphis, Tennessee, and so 
 intensely hot that no city or village ever was built upon its 
 banks in that region — and we next find him at ^non near 
 Salim, for there was much water there, not deep; the word, 
 polla never meant deep, but " many waters " or fountains 
 is far more correct, as the Syriac and Arabic have it. 
 There was enough water in the springs of those mountain 
 regions for the numbers coming now for all customary pur- 
 poses. Hence we have here Bible reasons for all we see. 
 They baptized in ^non with water. They had known no 
 other mode than affusion for fifteen hundred years. Cus- 
 tom demands its acceptance here as the recognized mode. 
 The primary meaning of baptidzo settles it as the mode. 
 Instead of the facts forcing us from the primary import 
 here they all point to it as the only mode. And if we 
 want current or general usage, that has been the usage 
 fifteen hundred years. Nay, the Jews of those days tell 
 us how much water was necessary to their ablutions in 
 general. '' They allot a one-fourth part of a log for the 
 washing of one person's hands, it may be of two; half a 
 log for three or four ; a whole log for five to ten, nay to one 
 hundred, with this provision, saith Rabbi Jose, that the 
 last that washed hath no less than a fourth part of a log 
 for himself (Lightfoot, Horse, ii, 254). A log is five 
 sixths (I) of a pint. One person then washed with near- 
 ly one fifth of a pint. Its mode is told us by Pocock 
 also — aqua effusa erase, with water j^oured out of a vessel, 
 cup, or boAvl. Leigh gives the same citation. 
 
 So well was it known that the baptisms of Mark vii, 
 4, were all by sprinkling, that the learned Greeks who 
 
G8 BAPTISM. 
 
 duplicated manuscripts, translate baptisontai in that place 
 rantisontai, '^sprinkle themselves.'^ The two oldest copies 
 of the New Testament known thus translate it. Seven 
 others do so. The reason was, that was a mere traditional 
 obligation, and the baptism was not by divine authority. 
 As it was not even by pouring in any case — always single 
 in mode, and regarded by Christians as only a mode, they 
 translate it sprinkle themselves. These are histoync facts, 
 
 WITHOUT METAPHORS. 
 
 Hence, Theophylact, the Greek father, commenting on 
 Luke xi, 38, says, ^'Deriding their foolish customs, I 
 mean, purifying themselves {katharidzesthai) before eat- 
 ing." The apostolic constitution, 66, alluding to the Jews, 
 says, ^' Unless they baptize themselves daily they do not 
 cat. Still further, unless they purify (katharosin) with ica- 
 tcr their couches and seats they will not use them at all.'' 
 John ii, 6, tells us of the "water-pots, after the manner 
 of the purifying of the Jews," which held two or three 
 firkins apiece — i. e. six gallons. Could people immerse 
 themselves in these jars of six gallons? " Benaiah struck 
 his foot against a dead tortoise, and went down to Siloam, 
 where, breaking all the little particles of hail, he baptized 
 himself."'^ He touched a dead body ; that required bap- 
 tism. His baptism was performed by means of melted 
 liail — a handful of water. Hence, Lightfoot, than whom 
 we have no higher authority on such subjects, says, allud- 
 ing to the cases of Mark vii, 4, " That the plunging of 
 the whole body is not understood here may be sufficiently 
 proved hence ; that such plunging is not used but when 
 pollution is contracted from the more principal causes,t 
 ... for an unclean thing, . . . from water of purifying, 
 
 ■--Lightfoot, Horje Heb. et Tal., vol. 3, 292, we tebal. 
 
 t And this only " laier,'' as Pocock and Castell say and show. 
 
BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAVER. 69 
 
 etc." (Rabbi Solomon).* ^' Baptismous washing applied to 
 all these; ... in respect to some things, of washing 
 only (that is, pouring water); and in respect of others, 
 of sprinkling only, f 
 
 THE LAVER-WASH AND MAIMONIDES. 
 
 Elder Wilkes, % Dr. Graves, § and all other immersion- 
 ists have relied on Maimonides, above all authorities to 
 settle the issue between us and them on the import of 
 wash among the Jews. They cite this Rabbi to prove that 
 in all cases wash [i-achats] involved a complete immersion 
 of the whole body in water. It is thus cited: ^'Wher- 
 ever in the law washing [y^achats^ of the flesh or clothes 
 is mentioned, it means nothing else than dipping of the 
 whole body in a laver; for if a man dips himself all 
 over [notice that wash himself all over is the word in 
 Maimonides] except the tip of his little finger, he is still 
 in his uncleanness.^' Not unbaptized. Below they quote 
 again: ^'A bed that is wholly defiled, if he dip it part 
 by part is pure." I have the original of this by the 
 Rabbi. 
 
 1. Dr. Graves, as always he seems to do, blunders as 
 follows in introducing M., thus : " But I want to know 
 how I am committed to the theory that the purifications 
 of the Old Testament were so many baptisms ? I will tell 
 him how I will commit myself to it. In every case of 
 purification when taval is used, I will say that Avas by the 
 
 * Lightfoot, Hor£B Heb. et Tal., vol. 2, 417, 418; Sol. in Kelm., 
 chap. 1. 
 
 t Ibid. 
 
 J Louisville Debate, 563. 
 
 § Graves, Carrolton Debate, pp. 113, 493; Ingham's Hand-book on 
 Baptism, 373. 
 
70 BAPTISM. 
 
 immersion of the whole body, hut in no other cases '^''^ (p. 
 112, 113). The next point m this is that such a thing 
 never occurs in the whole Bible. Taval is not once used 
 for purification, or to accomplish its washing in a single 
 place in the Bible. But, 
 
 2. I will give a close and literal translation of this 
 Rabbi: ^'Wherever in the law washing [ixcchats'] occurs, 
 cither of the body [bashaj flesli] or of the garments, from 
 \inhi\ defilement, nothing else is to be understood than the 
 Avashing \tahelcili\ of the wdiole body at a fountain [or in 
 conceptacle of water]. And that which is said [here 
 extra defilement is described and omitted here], ^and he 
 shall not wash [shatap1i\ his hands with water,' is to be 
 understood as if he said he must wash [sJiitabidy tebar\ his 
 whole body with water. And after the same order shall 
 other impurities be judged of; so that if one should wash 
 himself all over \_kuIo~\, except the extremity of his little 
 finger, he is yet in liis unclean ness." 
 
 3. This was w'ashing for extraordinary defilement, not 
 ordinary purification. 
 
 4. It is here shown even by that version of it that one 
 may baptize himself without washing or dipping himself 
 ^•'all over." 
 
 5. No question is here raised by the Rabbi about or- 
 dinary baptism by perfusion or dipping, but whether for 
 certain kinds of pollution "washing all over'' was not 
 necessary. 
 
 6. It does not declare, taking their version, that dip- 
 ping is necessary to baptism, but declares if any part in 
 the case given be unwashed he is still unclean, simply. 
 
 *Had Dr. G. cited Kabbi M. in the actual debate, the exposure 
 would have followed in the next speech. I did not find out he had 
 slipped it and his authors in the published debate till my eighth speech, 
 where I answer it. 
 
BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAVEE. 71 
 
 7. It admits that complete immersion is not required 
 even in complete defilement, but all parts must he touched 
 by the water in such cases. ^^A bed that is wholly defiled, 
 if a man dip it part by part, it is })ure." Here their own 
 citation shows that bury, cover, immerse, dip is no essen- 
 tial point. First one part of the bed then another is put 
 into the water for cleansing. This is not immersion in 
 the sense Baptists, etc. mean — only a small part in at a 
 time. Do Baptists dip a subject "part by part?'^ 
 
 8. Let us analyze the further assumptions of immer- 
 sionists here. 
 
 First. The word used for this wash is rachats, which 
 never means immerse or dip, but primarily is ^^to pour 
 out, drip.-'^ See the chapter on Wash. 
 
 Second. Kabas is used to define this word, which no 
 lexicon ever renders by dip or immerse. 
 
 Third. Shataph figures as the main word for their 
 ^^dip,'^ ''immerse,'^ which Gesenius defines by a "pouring 
 rain,'^ Furst by a "rain-gust," and is used (1 Kings xxii, 
 38) for washing the chariot at the pool. Did he dip it? 
 
 Fourth. Tabhal is used several times, which primarily 
 means "to sprinkle,'^ and all the greatest authorities tell 
 us is used where the ^'object is merely touched by the 
 liquid in part or in whole."* See tabhal. 
 
 9. But after all this, Maimonides lived late in the 
 twelfth century after Christ, was an Arab converted to 
 Judaism in that century. He is just eleven hundred years 
 too late to know of what he speaks only as he saw it in 
 those dark ages. Against him we oppose Onkelos and 
 
 *It may be noted, Dr. Graves, forgetting himself, introduces Dr. 
 Alting (Debate, p. 493) as "so distinguished a scholar " on Eabbi Mai- 
 monides's point, renders it "the washing of the whole body is either 
 added or understood." Opera Tern. lY; Com. on Epis. Heb. 220. That 
 is well, and refutes his assertions about Alting and Maimonides. 
 
72 BAPTISM. 
 
 Jonathan Ben Uzzial, who lived before Christ (see them 
 quoted in the Laver), and Josephus, who lived in the days 
 of Paul^ and Pocock, who above all men examined Mai- 
 monides, had all that Rabbi had and infinitely more be- 
 sides, Castell, Lightfoot, Wetstein, Buxtorf, Leigh, Schind- 
 Icr, Stokius, Kimchi, and a host of others, besides the 
 iacts of the Bible in the laver baptisms. Of Maimonides, 
 Dr. Gale, the most learned of all Baptists in Rabbinic 
 learning, says, "As for Maimonides . . . [he was] per- 
 fectly besotted in the idle dreams in which their boasted 
 knowledge chiefly consists, and consequently even he can 
 not be much depended on ; besides he lived not above six 
 hundred years ago, . . . therefore could know what was 
 ])racticed in our Savior^s time no better than many can 
 now." Reflections on Wall, Wall, vol. 2, 102, ed. 1862, in 
 two volumes. 
 
 We dare not lose sight of the symbolic import of 
 baptism if we wish to be scriptural in its use. As it had 
 always been symbolic of the religious innocence or quali- 
 fication effected in the sinner or priest by the " Avashing of 
 regeneration," the spiritual cleansing, so Ephesians v, 25, 
 26; Titus iii, 5; Hebrews x, 22, show that in the latest 
 apostolic records baptism represented the spiritual cleans- 
 ing, was symbolic of " sanctify," "cleanse," "wash." But 
 it is "with jpure water." No one dipped in a muddy or 
 filthy jDond or creek of water where stagnation and accu- 
 mulated filth stain the water is baptized. His body is 
 not "washed with pure water." As this is spiritual water 
 alluded to, just as the heart sprinkled in the same verse 
 is spiritual, yet all such metaphorical allusions have the 
 literal as their basis. Hence none but pure water can con- 
 stitute symbolic baptism. It is because of the supersti- 
 tious uses baptism has been devoted to, and the unscrip- 
 
BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAYER. 73 
 
 tural supposition that mode is the baptism, that has led 
 to dipping in filthy, stenchy, foul holes of half mud, half 
 filth, etc. that utterly disgraces the rite and obscures its 
 beauty. 
 
 If any one doubts the pure symbolic import of baptism 
 let him examine in full its origin. 
 
 1. Exodus xxix, 4-6; xxx, 18-22; Leviticus viii, 4-6; 
 Numbers viii, 7. 
 
 2. The allusions to it in the Prophets: Psalm li, 
 1-10; Isaiah i, 16; iv, 4; xliv, 3; Ezekiel xvi, 9; xxxvi, 
 25, 26. 
 
 3. John's baptism (John iii, 23-26), where it was a " pu- 
 rifying,'' and translated in the old ^thiopic and other 
 ancient versions ^^ baptism '^ (Matt, iii, 11) ^Svith water 
 unto {eis) repentance." 
 
 4. The allusions recited above. Acts xxii, 16, compared 
 with ix, 18, 19, "Be baptized and wash away thy sins in 
 calling on the name of the Lord'' — the six versions made 
 before James's all thus read. Eph. v, 26; Titus iii, 5; 
 Heb. X, 22. 
 
 5. After John was imprisoned Christ called his apostles. 
 Mark i, 1-4, 16-20; Luke iv entire; then v, 2-12, and vi, 
 12-14; Matt, ix, 9, etc. From that day till after his death 
 Christ does not have any one baptized, does not name 
 Christian baptism to any one till just before he ascended 
 (Matt, xxviii, 18, 19); and hence as John's baptism was 
 only symbolic of the Spirit's cleansing, it follows it is 
 only so still, as the commission made no limitation nor 
 gave it any new force save the naming of the Father, 
 Son, and Spirit. 
 
 6. The apocryphal use is cleanse, and nothing more. 
 Judith xii, 7 ; Eccles. xxxiv, 25 : Washeth — baptizes — from 
 a dead body, " What is he profited by his cleansing if ho 
 
74 BAPTISM. 
 
 touch it again ? " So Tobit ii, 5 : Louo, wash, after touch- 
 ing a dead body. 
 
 7. As before shown, the real import and design of any 
 rite is always involved in the ground-form, or elements 
 used, and if a mere action involving not external elements, 
 then in the proper import of the word used, as circum- 
 cision. 
 
 Hence in the lamb and its blood is found the true sym- 
 bolism of the Passover, pointing to Christ our Passover. 
 
 In the day God rested from labor is the ground of 
 import to our Sabbath. 
 
 In the meaning of circumcision in the Hebrew, cut off, 
 separate, is the symbolism of circumcision — the heart sep- 
 arated from sin (Col. ii, 12; Rom. ii, 28, 29), and the men, 
 as Abraham, the Jews, etc., separated to themselves. 
 
 Hence among all nations on earth in all ages water 
 represents cleansing and innocence in its symbolism. It 
 never symbolizes death, but represents just the reverse — 
 life constantly. It never represents burial nor resurrec- 
 tion. All that baptism was ever designed to represent is 
 seen in its recognized import. 
 
 We have seen that for fifteen hundred years baptism, 
 from its institution as a rite till Christ came, was by affu- 
 sion in all cases. That in all cases it was symbolic 
 also. We will see in the future that the Jews constantly 
 used words that meant both pour and sprinkle — the same 
 word or words. The plentiful pouring out of the Spirit 
 prophesied of so often may have led the apostles to the 
 preference they give to jwur over sprinkle. Hence we 
 may justly suppose pouring became their favorite mode 
 over sprinkling. It is preposterous to suppose that the 
 Jews who believed in Christ and who, even late in the 
 apostolic age, like Paul, kept ^'the purifying of the Jews" 
 
BAPTISM OUT OF THE LAVER. 75 
 
 (Acts xxiv, 18; John ii, 6), as he was ''purified in the 
 temple/^ were immersed for baptism when affusion had 
 been the universal practice for fifteen hundred years. 
 Unless some fact shows a change we are to suppose the 
 old practice was continued. Jesus gave the commission 
 (Matt, xxviii, 18, 19, 20) under which we today act — dis- 
 ciple all nations, all the gentiles, ''baptizing them,'' etc. 
 He does not say " with water,'' for it had been used fifteen 
 hundred years — was well understood. He makes no change 
 in its design, mode, purport. The only modification given 
 was, " In the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Spirit." Hence the long-established mode was 
 continued. 
 
76 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER VIII. 
 
 Baptism — Revival of Learning — Classics — 
 Lexicons. 
 
 From the dawning of the Reformation, 1520-1522, till 
 the present time there has been a sad and almost ruin- 
 ous war of words on the question of how much water is 
 required to administer the ordinance of baptism. As the 
 immersionist side was espoused in the main by very igno- 
 rant and fanatical and even turbulent men at first, and 
 the church was settled by the state, scholars took little or 
 no interest in the controversy. Being satisfied that affu- 
 sion was scriptural they devoted their attention to other 
 and (to them) more interesting matters. Not until the 
 middle of the seventeenth century did any eminent scholar 
 defend the extreme views of the anti-pedobaptists. The 
 pedobaptists devoted all their attention, so far as baptism 
 interested them, to a defense of infant baptism, especially 
 from the historic standpoint. 
 
 In England since the days of Dr. Gale, and more re- 
 cently Dr. Carson; and in the United States, especially 
 within the last forty years, it has become the most ab- 
 sorbing topic in the catalogue of religious dogmas. In 
 Germany it has never excited any attention among the 
 learned worthy of notice. 
 
 The parties favoring affusion labored under a great 
 disadvantage by allowing both sides to adhere to a course 
 of argumentation destitute of, and antagonistic to, all 
 
EEVIVAL OF LEARNING. i( 
 
 sound and recognized rules and laws of philology. AYord- 
 building, root-derivation^ and all the laws by which schol- 
 ars arrive at a correct knowledge of the force and mean- 
 ing of words were ignored, and a wholly unscientific 
 method persued. The immersionists and many pedobap- 
 tists treated the subject as if their interpretation of Ro- 
 mans vi, 3, 4; Colossians ii, 11, 12, settled the meaning 
 of the word, and so philology was ignored. Had Frank- 
 lin, Morse, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Bacon investi- 
 gated the phenomena of nature from such unscientific 
 standpoints the world would still be in profound ignorance 
 of electricity, philosophy, and astronomy. 
 
 The great body of pedobaptists Avho favor immersion, 
 such as Selden, Wall, and many others, though admitting 
 the scripturalness of affusion, assumed that Jewish prose- 
 lyte baptism was practiced before and in the apostles' days. 
 Baptist w^riters contend that it was a century or more, not 
 to say three or four centuries, later than the apostolic age. 
 The Jews of the Middle Ages baptized and still baptize 
 gentile proselytes generally by immerson. Hence Selden, 
 Wall, and other pedobaptists who favor immersion do so 
 almost exclusively in the belief that the Jewish j^i'oselyte 
 immersion of the fourth century a.d. was apostolic in its 
 date and also perpetuated by the apostles. It is not fair to 
 take the evidence of these men in favor of immersion, as 
 all Baptists do, and yet utterly repudiate the only ground 
 and evidence that these distinguished scholars relied on as 
 furnishing the proofs of immersion. 
 
 Another fact has misled many and puzzled not a few. 
 The allusions to the Spirit of God moving upon the Ava- 
 ters; hovering over the waters; the voice of the Lord 
 upon the flood, etc. induced the settled conviction among 
 many fathers, such as Tertullian, Origcn, and others, that 
 
78 BAPTISM. 
 
 the Spirit of God imparted a divine efficacy and virtue to 
 the water, by which those who received baptism had the 
 grace of God imbibed from the water. It had a ^^ med- 
 ical virtue" that sanctified the nature of man. The Jews 
 superstitiously fell into the same error on the approach of 
 the Dark Ages, and hence they would either merse the 
 whole body under the water, or mersed the person waist 
 or neck deep; both were practiced to imbibe the saving 
 grace, while the baptismal water was poured upon the 
 head. The many ancient pictures representing Christ and 
 others as baptized standing in Jordan are illustrations. 
 These superstitions led to the more general practice of 
 immersion in the Dark Ages. The Latin and Greek fa- 
 thers practiced trine-immersions — ^Hhree dips for one bap- 
 tism" — for many centuries. A single dip for baptism was 
 wholly unknown for the first three centuries of tlie church 
 after Christ. Hence immersion was tlic prevailing, almost 
 universal mode in Europe when learning was revived in 
 the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. It is only within 
 the last forty years that the Indo-European languages, 
 Greek, Latin, etc., have been studied from scientific stand- 
 points, and those great laws and affinities of language 
 discovered that underlie a correct knowledge of those 
 languages. So of the Hebrew, though in the seventeenth 
 century Hebrew and Syriac advanced far beyond Greek, 
 but retrograded again. 
 
 After Greek learning was lost in the western part of 
 Europe, for some seven centuries it remained unknown, 
 unread throughout Germany, England, France, Italy, etc. 
 Not until the fall of Constantinople under the Turks, May 
 29, 1453, was it revived. The Vatican library was not 
 founded till under Nicholas Y, 1447. In 1445 it con- 
 tained only five thousand volumes. Wycliffe's (1382) and 
 
CLASSICS. 79 
 
 the German versions (1460-1470) were from the Vulgate 
 Latin. They knew nothing about Greek. 
 
 In the beginning of the fourteenth century only four 
 classical manuscripts were found in the Library of Paris, 
 and they were Latin. The Academical Library of Oxford 
 in the year 1300 a.d. consisted of a few tracts. Greek was 
 not introduced at Oxford nor in England till a.d. 1485 
 to 1509.* It was not introduced in France till 1458 nor 
 in Germany till 1471. Even Latin was so little known 
 in classical forms that in 1254 the names of Yirgil and 
 Cicero were unknown in Italy and France. In 1513 Gar- 
 land said Greek could not be read in France. The first 
 effort to teach Greek in England was under Grocyn (1485- 
 1519). The first Greek grammar published (Lascaris's) in 
 France in 1476. The first lexicon (Craston's) in France 
 in 1480 — "a very imperfect vocabulary." f ^^For many 
 years" this ^'continued to be the oyily assistance of the 
 kind to which a student could have recourse. The author 
 was an Italian." J 
 
 In 1521 the first Greek characters appear in England 
 in a book at Cambridge. § In 1533 ^'some Englishmen 
 began to aifect a knowledge of Greek." || In Scotland it 
 was not yet pretended, but began to be studied in 1534. 
 Not till 1550 was a Greek lexicon or grammar printed in 
 England. 1[ The first editions of Greek authors were 
 very defective, and generally later writers, such as ^lian, 
 Epictetus, Plutarch, or mere selections of Hesiod, etc., 
 up to 1523. The Etymologicum 3Iagnum of Phavorinus, 
 whose real name was Guarino, published at Rome in 1523, 
 was of some importance, while no lexicon but the very 
 
 *-Hallam, Middle Ages, 548. t Hist. Lit., by Hallam, vol. 1, 130. 
 t Ibid. § Hist. Lit., I, 182, by Hallam. 
 
 II Ibid. 183. ^ Hist. Lit., I, 184, Hallam. 
 
80 BAPTISM. 
 
 defective one of Crastoii had been printed.'^* It is only 
 a compilation. 
 
 Erasmus taught Greek at Cambridge where Tyndale, 
 the first pretending translator of the Greek Testament 
 into English, studied (1503-1514). These wretched and 
 defective works were their only sources of information — 
 Craston\s their only lexicon. Vatable (Vatabulus) was 
 the first Hebrew professor in France (1534 to 1545). He, 
 in infancy of the study of Hebrew in Western Europe, is 
 often paraded by immersionists as a great authority, even 
 by such men as Gale, Ingham, etc. 
 
 With these encumbrances we are surprised at what Tyn- 
 dale, Calvin, Luther, and others accomplished; but all can 
 see what a miserable subterfuge it is to quote the opinions 
 of these men as an ultimate authority, or on a primary 
 meaning on baptidzo and bapto, when, however gigantic 
 their intellects, yet the age ; the very defective aids ; the 
 non-appearance as yet of the best Greek writers ; the prev- 
 alence of the later and defective Greek writers over the 
 earlier and better, as far as publications went, all show 
 that verbal criticism was sadly defective and philology 
 unknown. Of Luther, the Hebrew lexicographer ^^ Simon 
 has charged him with ignorance of Hebrew, and when we 
 consider how late he came to the study of either that or the 
 Greek language, and the multiplicity of his employments, 
 it may be believed that his knowledge of them vfdi^i far from 
 extensive.''^ Eichorn accounts for it "in the lamentable de- 
 ficiency of subsidiary means in that age'^ (iii, 317). Yet 
 " from this (Luther's) translation, however, and from the 
 Latin Vulgate, the English one of Tyndale and Coverdale, 
 published in 1535 or 1536, is wholly taken.'' f 
 
 ^Ibid. 177. 
 
 tHallam, Hist. Lit., I, 201; Simon, Hist. Critique, V. T., p. 432; 
 Andres XIX, 169. 
 
REVIVAL OF LEAIIXIXG. 81 
 
 Such were the materials on which James's version is 
 wholly based, such the aids of that age. Scotus, Aquinas, 
 etc., also are paraded to decide baptidzo by Booth, Ing- 
 ham, etc., when they never saw a Greek alphabet in their 
 lives ! Such is the treatment this question has received 
 ever since it was mooted in the sixteenth century. Up to 
 1550 " no Greek grammars or lexicons were yet printed 
 in England " (Hallam).^ They were yet dependent mainly 
 on such writers as Craston, Aldus, etc.; those works "gen- 
 erally very defective through the slight knowledge of the 
 language that even the best scholars then possessed. ^'f We 
 ask now, of what value are the opinions of such author- 
 ities in verbal criticism as compared with those that arc the 
 result of a scientific and exhaustive examination of the 
 facts involved? We constantly see the men who flourished 
 in and about those times, Beza, Casaubon, Calvin, Zwingle, 
 Luther, paraded on this question, with hosts of far inferior 
 ones, when on such matters their opinions are of no more 
 value than they would be on astronomy at that time. Many 
 great and essential facts and principles in language, as essen- 
 tial to accuracy in philology as the microscope, telescope, 
 and spectroscope are to science now, were wholly un- 
 known to that age. Not till after Tyndale's New Testa- 
 ment Avas printed (1526), based on Luther's (1522), did the 
 first effort at real lexicography appear — the Commentaril 
 Linguce Grcecce, Paris, 1529. " This great work of Bud- 
 dseus has been the text-book and common storehouse of 
 succeeding lexicographers . . . His authorities and illus- 
 trations are chiefly drawn from the prose writers of Greece, 
 the historians, orators, and fathers. \_Note that.'] With 
 the poets he seems to have had a less intimate acquaintance '' 
 (Hallara.)I Yet this very class, poets, are the first by 
 
 - Hist. Lit., I, 184. t Hallam, Hist. Lit., I, 248. 
 
 t Hist. Lit., I, 178. 
 
 6 
 
<S2 BAPTISM. 
 
 long centuries that use baj}to or bajytidzo, from wliom we 
 could best trace its primary meaning, being the first by 
 many centuries that can give us light here. Only on 
 words of jurisprudence, legal terms, did Buddseus bestow 
 pains (Hallam). Hence a lexicon as late as 1537 abounds 
 '^ in faults and inaccuracies of every description ^' {ibid^ 
 178). In 1562 appeared Robert Constantine's Greek lex- 
 icon at Basle. Scaliger speaks of it and its author '' in a 
 disparaging tone " (Hallam). Yet he may have underrated 
 it. The Quarterly Review observes, by one of its modern 
 critics, that ^' a very great proportion of the explanations 
 and authorities in Stephens's Thesaurus are borrowed from 
 it'^ (Hallam).* As this is the lexicon whence so many 
 others came to the world, its make-up is all important. Of 
 Constantine's lexicon it is added, ''The principal defects 
 are, first, the confused and ill-digested arrangement of the 
 interpretation of words ; and secondly, the absence of all 
 distinction between primitives and derivatives.^^ He was 
 assisted by H. Stephanus. Says Hallam, after Constan- 
 tine's lexicon was improved, 1591, '' It is extremely defective 
 and /i^// of errors.'^j Yet Stephanus transfers ''a very 
 great proportion of the explanations and authorities'' of 
 this defective work to his own great work. 
 
 It was only in this way he could compile so enormous 
 a folio work (now with additions making ten folio vol- 
 umes) in twelve years. Buxtorf spent thirty years on 
 
 * Hist. Lit., I, 250. 
 
 t Ibid. 250. Since writing the above I Lave secured Max Muller's 
 works, and in vol. 4, Chips from a German "Workshop, p. 209, ed. 187(3, 
 where he says, "Even more pernicious to the growth of sound ideas 
 was the study of etymology, as formerly carried on in schools and uni- 
 versities. Every thing here was left to chance or to authority, and it was 
 not unusual that two or three etymologies of the same word had to be 
 learnt, as if the same word might have had more than one parent." 
 Gesenius is an eminent example of this error. 
 
REVIVAL OF LEARXIXG. - 83 
 
 one lexicon, only one folio volume, and Castell's lexicon 
 aggregates three hundred years' labor, two folio volumes. 
 Stephen's Thesaurus (lexicon) appeared in 1572. Of it 
 Hallam says truly (for his day, thirty to forty years ago), 
 it ''is still the s'mgle Greek lexicon; one which some have 
 ventured to abridge or enlarge, but none have presumed 
 to supersede/' Scapula published an abridgment of Stc- 
 phanus in 1579. After this age ''for another century 
 mankind was content, in respect to Greek philology, to 
 live on the accumulations of the sixteenth; and it was not 
 till after so long a period had elapsed that new scholars 
 arose, more exact, more philosophical, more acute," etc. 
 (Hallam).* Hedericus, Pasor, Schrevelius, etc. are only 
 abridgments, while Donnegan, Dnnbar (first edition), and 
 many others are mere English translations and abridg- 
 ments. Not till Schneider, Passow, Rost, etc., in the past 
 fifty years, was there a real advance made in Greek lexi- 
 cography. Passow made the first real advance toward 
 science and accuracy. As Tyndale and Luther had to rest 
 on such miserable help, and really, mainly, simply trans- 
 lated the Vulgate Latin, not the Greek, so James's trans- 
 lators adopted theirs Avith but little change, none on bap- 
 tism, and had to rely on these helps alone. Hence they 
 adhere so constantly to the Latin Vulgate. All these 
 lexicons were for classic Greek, not a New Testament lex- 
 icon was yet produced. Indeed they knew not enough 
 about Greek to know the facts now universally conceded, 
 that the difference in restrictively religious words and 
 those applied to ordinances is very great. Comparative 
 philology is w^holly a modern science. The discoveries of 
 Grimm, Bopp, Max Mliller, in philology generally (vol. 
 iv, Chips from a German Workshop, etc.) ; the labors o£ 
 ■^^Hist. Lit., I, 261. 
 
8 4 BAPTISM. 
 
 Fiirst, Ewald, Hupfeld, Delitzch, in Semitic tongues; 
 Freund, Schiller, etc., in Latin; as >yell as Passow, Kiih- 
 ner, Rost, Palm, Pape, in Greek, have advanced these 
 departments immensely, and the work is only fairly 
 begun. 
 
 To return now : The lexicography of the past centu- 
 ries, as well as all the English versions, were wholly by 
 IMMERSIONISTS — Called dipping then — under immersion 
 INFLUENCES AND LATVS. Yet havc they not filled the 
 land with the cry of pedobaptist lexicons, concessions, ver- 
 sions, as if they were affusionists ? 
 
 Dr. Conant, Baptist (Baptizein, p. 138-9), quotes the 
 statutes of England from Edward VI (1549) to Charles 
 IT (1662) for dipping as the law, save in cases where a 
 physician certified that the child was too delicate to be 
 dipped. A. Campbell quotes the same (Ch. Baptism, pp. 
 192-200). See Louisville Debate, pp. 522-3, and M. Stuart 
 on Baptism, pp. 152-3, and Introduction by J. R. Graves, 
 p. 24, where it is proved '4hat the English Church prac- 
 ticed immersion down to the beginning of the seventeenth 
 century, when a change to the method of sprinkling grad- 
 ually took place.^' But James^s version followed the 
 Bishops' Bible, both followed Tyndale's, on baptism in 
 New Testament. It is a reprint of that of 1526 in these 
 respects. At this time all agree no change in favor of 
 sprinkling had been thought of in England or France. 
 Tyndale was an out-and-out immersionist, as Graves, 
 Conant, A. Campbell, etc. prove. A. Campbell quotes 
 him to this eifect, as well as Conant (Baptism, p. 140), and 
 adds, ^^The translators of the common version were all, 
 or nearly all, genuine Episcopalians, and at the very time 
 they made the version were accustomed to use a liturgy 
 which made it the minister's duty, in the sacrament of 
 
REVIVAL OF LEAKXIXG. 8o 
 
 baptism, 'to take the child and dip it in the water ^ con- 
 tained in the font. I have seen copies of James's version, 
 printed in 1611, which contain the Psalms and service 
 of the church, in which frequent allusions are made to 
 immersion, all indicative of the fact that it was then 
 [1607-1611] regarded as the primitive and proper bap- 
 tism; consequently, these translators accepted the king's 
 appointment and restrictions, to retain baptize and bap- 
 tism rather than translate them,* and on no occasion 
 favored the innovation of sprinkling by any rendering or 
 note marginal in that translation." 
 
 Benedict, the great Baptist historian, quotes Ivimey's 
 History of English Baptists (vol. 1, pp. 138-140) thus of 
 the years 1616 to 1633, in England: ^^ Immersion being 
 incontrovertibly the universal practice in England at that 
 time," etc. (p. 337). I presume this does not mean that 
 individuals at that time were not baptized by pouring at 
 least, but that immersion was practiced over all the king- 
 dom — was general. It agrees with the facts of Wall (vol. 
 2, p. 581) and note there as to Dr. Whittaker's influence, 
 beginning 1624. 
 
 Since the above was wM'itten Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 
 425) quotes Wall, part 2, chap. 9, and indorses it as say- 
 ing, "As for sprinkling, properly called, it seems it was at 
 1645 just then beginning and used by very few. It must 
 have begun in the disorderly times after 1641, for Mr. 
 Blake, who lived in England in 1644, had never used it 
 nor seen it used.'^ Notice now the clearly-made-out facts : 
 
 1. James's version, so far as baptism is concerned, is 
 Tyndale's, 1526 — a real immersionist. 
 
 * There is no special restriction as to baptism in his instructions. 
 The fact that all versions in kindred tongues, from the Itala, Jerome, 
 Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale to James's always anglicised the word 
 v/as suificient reason for it. 
 
86 BAPTISM. 
 
 2. Not till after the appearance of Dr. Whittaker's 
 work (1624), fourteen years after James's version was 
 completed and thirteen years after it was published (1611), 
 did any one advocate sprinkling. 
 
 3. As late as 1645 sprinkling was only beginning to be 
 practiced. 
 
 4. Still as late as 1662 the civil statutes re-enacted dip- 
 ping, and Wesley, as a British subject and chaplain to 
 Governor Oglethorpe, as late as 1736 rigidly adhered to it 
 in the case of Mrs. Parker's child, Georgia being then a 
 British colony. 
 
 5. James's translators were educated by immersionists 
 altogether, used lexicons and notes wholly steeped in im- 
 mersion prejudices, under immersion laws. Hence, truly, 
 
 6. They never favored sprinkling "by any rendering." 
 No, they translate it that Christ went '^straightway up out 
 of the water '^ in utter violation of all Greek usage, and 
 where in the Pentateuch it is "ivash with water" repeatedly 
 they render it "bathe in water," in utter contempt of the 
 Greek, Hebrew, and common sense, as if it were a medical 
 and not a religious rite, cleansing, washing, bathing not 
 being the object. 
 
 Buddieus never studied the older and purer Greek writ- 
 ers at all. He only studied closely the law-terms of any. 
 His is the great lexicon till Stephanus. He completes his 
 enormous work in twelve years; copies large parts from 
 Constantine, a work full of defects, blunders, errors. Many 
 of the best Greek writers were not accessible, not edited 
 yet or convenient to him. They came to their work and 
 to baptidzo not as scientists, not as philologists should, but 
 crammed with superstitious ideas of the " magical effect of 
 baptism," looking at it largely as settled by ecclesiastics, 
 carrying thus the huge bulk of the rubbish of the accumu- 
 
REVIVAL OF LEARNING. 87 
 
 lating superstitions of a thousand years. Yefc they are 
 paraded as if prejudiced in favor of affusionistsf They 
 <lid the best they could. They are a marvel of success, 
 considering their age and chances. On baptidzo or bapto 
 Buddseus and Stephanus fall hundreds of years short of 
 the earlier or literal earlier use of these words. This will 
 come up in due time. The ignorance, the prejudices of 
 centuries had to be overcome. All the talk of Casaubon, 
 Beza, Suicer, Witsius, Vossius, etc., etc. about originals, 
 etc. is based on the conceits of those times, overthrown 
 by all parties since and rejected by all men. Yet these 
 critics and lexicons are far more consistent and reliable 
 than many such men as Lange, Conybeare and Howson, 
 etc., who assume that Paul (Rom. vi, 3, 4) dogmatically 
 settles a question of philology and scienGe. But with all 
 their prejudices and unripened knowledge of language, and 
 unscientific processes, they overwhelmingly sustain our po- 
 sition, as will be shown when we quote them. We charge 
 not them with willful conduct. Prejudices are often honest, 
 and superstition is both sincere and terribly in earnest very 
 often. The facts they saw were enough to convince them, 
 and the facts were valuable as far as they went; but in ac- 
 counting for the facts they were like the old astronomers — 
 wild as to the causes, the laws of language. 
 
88 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER IX. 
 
 Changes in Meaning — Classic and New Testament 
 Greek — Primary and Derived Meanings. 
 
 The way in which classic Greek has been used in this 
 controversy is not only unscientific and onesided, but 
 persistently self-contradictory, as all will see. Were the 
 parties appealing to it as decisive of the controversy con- 
 sistent, they would abide their own decisions. Not one 
 of them has ever done so; not one ever will do so. 
 While classic Greek may and will prove a great help in 
 determining the philology of the w^ord, the action, the meari- 
 ing of the word as a secular word, it can not aid at all in 
 determining the religious force and application of baptidzo 
 for reasons that will soon be presented. We will soon see 
 Conant, Cox, Ingham, Carson, A. Campbell, Halley, Mell, 
 Gale, the whole body of immersionists, shrinking from 
 their classic proofs when they come to the New Testament. 
 Their ^'drench,^^ ^-sink," ^' overflow,'^ ''overwhelm," "in- 
 toxicate,'' ''make drunk," "burden with taxes," "soaked," 
 all give way. If classic Greek settles its use, why abandon 
 these in carrying it into the New Testament? As for our- 
 selves, we are perfectly willing to settle the force of the 
 action of haptldzo by an appeal to classic Greek, but for 
 its use and design as a religious ordinance classic Greek 
 affords no help, gives no light. 
 
 Let us see the consistency of the other side. Of sixty- 
 three occurrences in consecutive order Dr. Conant renders 
 
CHANGES IN MEANING. 89 
 
 baptidzo '^ whelm '' and '' overwhelm " fifty -three times, 
 ^Mmmerse'^ ten times. This sheds much light on the sub- 
 ject and will aid in discovering the primary meaning of tlie 
 word. And that is the main aid afforded by classic Greek. 
 
 Granting, as we do, that ^^ whehii,'' '^ overwhelm ^^ are 
 the prevailing meanings of the word in certain periods, 
 whence sinking is the result, hence to sink {immerse)] this 
 clearly shows that immerse is derivative. It must be re- 
 membered that we have Greek literature centuries before 
 we have baptidzo. We have hapto, its root, centuries prior 
 to baptidzo. Both words may have been in use centuries 
 in Avorks that never have reached the days of book pub- 
 lishing or printing. Words are always changing their 
 meanings. W^ho can tell what changes these words have 
 undergone during those centuries? We have one way of 
 learning — the laws of philology alone affording any help. 
 The great body of words in all our European and Asiatic 
 tongues so far as known are perpetually changing. 
 
 We must notice these two facts, viz. that, first, words 
 constantly change their meanings, and second, the differ- 
 ence between classic and biblical usage. Noah Webster 
 says, ^^ Words which have been long retained have often 
 lost tlieir old meanings and taken on new ones. In the 
 combination and construction of words, in phrase and 
 idiom, the changes have yet been more numerous. . . . 
 These differences are mainly lexical and rhetorical rather 
 than grammatical.^^* Again, '' We must have respect chiefly 
 
 "■•■ N. Webster's Brief Hist. Lang., Diet., p. xsvii, ed. 1865. Those who 
 wish to examine the subject more thoroughly may consult Planck, I, 
 pp. 13-23; Tittman, Synon., I, 202; Hermeneutical Manual, by Fair- 
 bairn, 93; Ed. Kobinson's Intro. (Preface) to Greek N. T. Lexicon, 
 V-VII. Hist. Art. in Bib. Kepos., Ap., 1841 ; Geo. Campbell's Prelim. 
 Dis., I, 30; Walton's Prolegomena on Syriac Versions, I, 92; Liddell 
 & Scott's Greek Lex., Intro., xx, xxii; M. Stuart, Bib. Kepos., Ap., 
 1833; Home's Intro., vol 1; Winor's Idioms, 26-34, 
 
90 BAPTISM. 
 
 to tlie usus loquendl, the current sense or established usage 
 at the time, to this more than to their etymology. . . . The 
 \ultimate use scarcely exhibits a trace of the primal signifi- 
 cation." 
 
 Carson, the Baptist, so often quoted says, " I maintain 
 that in figures there is no different meaning of the word. 
 It is only a figurative application. The meaning of the 
 word is always the same " (Baptism, p. 57). 
 
 Since the above was prepared for the press Dr. Graves, 
 in the Carrollton debate, was so pressed that he assumed the 
 absurd and marvelous position that the current meaning 
 was the primary meaning. Pages 253-4 he says, " The 
 definition that all lexicographers place ^rs^ is the only real 
 and proper definition.'' Again, page 254, " There are no 
 settled principles of philology by which we can conclu- 
 sively determine the current definition of terms by their 
 etymology. ^^ But at least some and the most essential " prin- 
 ciples of philology'' are now unanimously settled, namely, 
 that we must trace the history of each word and find its 
 earliest meaning — its " primal signification," as Webster 
 gavs — then, by its later history, how it took on other mean- 
 in o-s. All scholars are agreed on these principles since 
 Passow's day. But why does Dr. G. become so alarmed 
 at these principles? Truth can not suffer from them. He 
 goes on worse still : " It is true that very often the etymo- 
 logical is the real physical sense of the term [it is the rad- 
 ical, primal meaning that applies first to ^ physical ob- 
 jects,' objects of ^ sense '] ; but then, words [hear that, 
 will you] so drift away from this that not a shadow of their 
 etymological meaning remains." He cites prevent, etc., and 
 urges once its primary meaning was " to go before, pre- 
 cede ;" " now its primary'^ is " to hinder, etc. ! ! " This is 
 rich, racv, and rare. It is astonishing that a human could 
 
CHANGES IX MEANING. 91 
 
 litter such ridiculous jargon as tliis. Fairbairii above uses 
 the very words of Webster. Words so change — just as Dr. 
 G. says, they drift away, etc. — " that the ultimate use [cur- 
 rent usage] scarcely exhibits a trace of primal significa- 
 tion^^ (Her. Man., page 93). 
 
 PRIMARY MEANINGS. 
 
 Fowler, History and Grammar of English Language, 
 says, "Words thus in current use sometimes escape alto- 
 gether from their original meaning.'^ Jahn, the great 
 German critic, in his Introduction to the Old Testament, 
 p. 95, sec. 31, says, "Etymology, that is, the investigation 
 of the primary signification of luords and of the manner in 
 which other significations have arisen. [Italics his.] By 
 
 THE PRIMARY SIGNIFICATION IS MEANT THAT W^HICH 
 THE INVENTORS OF THE LANGUAGE ORIGINALLY 
 
 AFFIXED TO A WORD.^^ So Gesenius, Ernesti, Geo. Gimp- 
 bell, and Havernick hold, and every standard on earth. 
 Yet Dr. G. had to cut loose and drift out in a wild sea of 
 breakers, a midnight of nonsense and absurdity, to evade 
 the force of our facts, repudiating Carson utterly as well as 
 all other authorities. 
 
 Dr. Ed. Robinson\s Greek Lexicon, New Testamenc, 
 1865: "The scholar who would pursue the study of any 
 language critically and philologically does not rest until 
 he has traced each word to its origin; investigated its 
 primitive form and signification; noted the various forms 
 and senses in which it has been current in the different 
 epochs and dialects of the language; and the manner 
 and order in which all these are deduced from the prim- 
 itive one and from each other," etc. (Preface, iv). He 
 urges that only thus "is the scholar master of the word 
 
92 BAPTISM. 
 
 in question. Tiiis embraces the relations in which it 
 stands to other words in construction and phrases and 
 the various modifications which it lias undergone in these 
 respects." 
 
 Dr. Carson, Baptist, on Baptism, p. 23, justly says, 
 ^^The just and most obvious method of ascertaining the 
 meaning of a word is to examine its ORIGIN and use in 
 the language.'' This is our method. 
 
 " For together with the primary signification of the act 
 for the disciples its second universal. Christian, moral sig- 
 nification is established" (Lange on John xiii, 10, p. 409). 
 
 ROOTS AND THEIR MEANINGS. 
 
 Wm. H. Green's Hebrew Grammar, third edition, 1875, 
 p. 92, sec. 67 : " Roots do not enter in their nude or prim- 
 itive form into the current use of language, but they 
 constitute the basis upon which all actually occurring 
 words, with the exception of the inorganw interjections are 
 constructed. The second stage is the word itself in its 
 simple uninflected state." This is "the radical idea^^ with 
 the precise conception intended. The second stage is as 
 "in the actual utterances of speech, so modified by inflec- 
 tions as to suggest the definite qualifications of the idea," 
 tense, mood, etc., etc. First. In a word the root is not 
 in actual current use. Second. The word is uninflected. 
 All inflections modify the word, and in this stage the 
 radical idea is brought into our precise conception intend- 
 ed, etc. 
 
 Dr. Carson, Dr. Graves's idol (p. 280) takes exactly the 
 same view that these and all standards agree on. 
 
 Last and greatest of all on this subject we cite Max 
 Miiller (1876), a work issued since the preparation of these 
 
CHANGES IN MEANING. 93 
 
 pages, since the debate at CarroUton — Cliips from a Ger- 
 man Workshop, vol. iv, p. 218, which settles it forever: 
 ^^ It is one of the fundamental laws of etymology that in 
 tracing words back to their roots we have to show that 
 their primary, not their secondary meanings, agree with tlic 
 meaning of the root." This later meaning, current, he 
 calls " the historical development of the meanings.^^ See 
 also page 216. 
 
 Fowler, the learned author of the History and Gram- 
 mar of the English Language, sets this matter in its true 
 light. He says, "1. The question may arise whether, in 
 a given sentence, there is a rhetorical form ? Now it must 
 be conceded that it is not always easy to answer this ques- 
 tion. . . . The number of radical words in a language is 
 comparatively few, and are chiefly applied to physical 
 objects. As men found the stock of their ideas increasing, 
 instead of inventing new terms to describe them they 
 applied old words with an extended or changed mean- 
 ing; or, what is the same thing, used them figuratively. In 
 this way the great body of words in a language, in one 
 stage of their history or another, has been used tropically. 
 The word imagination, derived from image, a term applied 
 to its sensible object, was, on its first application to a men- 
 tal faculty or operation, tropical But it ceased to be 
 TROPICAL when it had been used so long that its secondary 
 meaning became indissolubly fixed as the principal one, 
 or indeed to most minds as its only one. Imagination 
 
 CAN not now be considered AS A FIGURATIVE TERM. 
 
 It has lost its tropical meaning, at least to the mass of read- 
 ers if not to the scholar. What is true of imagination is 
 true of a vast number of words." 
 
 Fairbairn says in his fourth rule to interpret words of 
 the Bible, "In settling the meaning of words, we must 
 
94 BAPTISM. 
 
 have respect chiefly to the usus loquendi, the current sense, 
 or established usage at the time^' (p. 93). Italics his. He 
 then shows that words so far depart from their radical 
 meamngs "that the ultimate use scarcely exhibits a trace 
 of the primal signification^^ (p. 93). Villain was once a 
 dependent serf simply. Sycophant once meant only an 
 accuser, then false accuser, now a fawning flatterer. Yet 
 in Greek it originally meant a big shower. 
 
 Winer, a universal standard, without a superior in the 
 department of New Testament grammatical use, treats the 
 subject of classical use and grammatical rules with admir- 
 able judgment. Idioms, pp. 26, 27, he shows that in Alex- 
 ander's time and on the Greek "underwent an internal 
 change of a twofold nature,'' the Attic its basis, "and there 
 arose a language of popular intercourse," this became 
 prominently Macedonian. This, differing especially in the 
 "provinces of Asia and Africa, constituted the basis of the 
 style of the Septuagint and the Apocrypha as well as the 
 New Testament." He shows that "the Jews in Egypt 
 and Palestine learned the Greek first by intercourse with 
 the Greeks, not from books." This was the case emi- 
 nently as to "the LXX, New Testament writers, and the 
 authors of many (Palestine) Apocrypha. A few of the 
 learned Jews, who valued and studied Greek literature, 
 approached nearer to the written language, as Philo and 
 Josephus." Winer then says in a note, "That the style of 
 the latter (Josephus) can not be accounted the same with 
 that of the Septuagint or of the New Testament will be 
 readily perceived by a comparison of the sections in the 
 earlier books of the Antiquities with the parallel ones of 
 the Septuagint" (p. 27). In the peculiarities of the New 
 Testament Greek he shows witli Planck, Sturz, and Lo- 
 beck that "entirely new words and formulas were con- 
 
CHANGES IN MEANING. ^-J 
 
 structed/' of which "baptisma/' baptism, is given as one 
 (p. 30). Now how can classic Greek determine the mean- 
 ing of a word never in use in any classic author? He then 
 shows that into this New Testament dialect came " foreign 
 intermixtures/^ and their Greek style took not only the 
 general complexion of their mother tongue (Hebrew), 
 which showed itself in monotony and circumlocution, but 
 more especially its inflexions. . . . 
 
 Hebraisms and Aramseisms (Syriac shades) are more 
 numerous in lexicography than grammar. Lexical Hebra- 
 isms soon became established, consisting in extension of 
 meaning, etc. Hence originated a Jewish Greek, ichich 
 native Greeks generally did not understand, and therefore 
 despised J'' So Hug., Introduction to New Testament, 
 vol. 1, 137, Buttman, Kiihner, Jelf, and all writers agree 
 in all this. How absurd, then, to use a literature — 
 classic Greek — as all immersionists do, to show the 
 meaning of haptism in the New Testament when the very 
 word never occurs in all their voluminous works, and go 
 to its verb form in a language the apostles ^'did not 
 understand. '^ 
 
 After Alexander the Great '' The Syrians and Hebrews 
 spoke a more corrupt Greek than the native Grecians, and 
 impressed on it more or less of the stamp of their vernacii- 
 lar language'' (p. 32). Hence the dialect tlius formed 
 '^vhich originated with them'' ('^this Oriental Greek dia- 
 lect'') "acquired the name of HeUenistiG idiom''' (Winer's 
 Id., p. 32).^ The learned Scaliger, not Drusius, gave it 
 
 *We feel like apologizing to any scholar for introducing such a 
 world of evidence on such a subject, now universally acceded to by 
 reasonable scholars (see on the Greek Language in the English Cyclo- 
 pedia, etc.) ; but the bitterness of partisanship on baptism drives men to 
 say very absurd things, and we have to waste much space to expose 
 them. 
 
96 BAPTISM. 
 
 this appellation. ^^It is well known that in the time of 
 Christ the Syro-Chaldaic and not the old Hebrew was the 
 populai- language of the Jews of Palestine {ibid., pp. 32, 
 33). Winer then shows that some carry these facts too 
 far, stretch them into abuse. 
 
 From these facts we may readily see why the Jews 
 used baptism in the sense in which it occurs throughout 
 the Old Testament as a sprinkling and pouring on of 
 water for religious purposes. Hence the Hebrew and 
 Syriac or Aramaean languages will shed far more light on 
 it than any other source of information, since as it occurs 
 in the New Testament it was wholly by Jews. 
 
 We give these facts though and rules as to the differ- 
 ence between radical and metaphorical uses of words to 
 have correct principles laid down, while at the same time 
 we are not at all dependent on them to establish our prin- 
 ciples, as the reader will readily see. 
 
 The twelve apostles and Christ being Jews (as well as 
 all their converts for eight or ten years after the com- 
 mission was given save one or two individuals) never read 
 or spoke in classic Greek. Paul seems to have had some 
 knowledge of the classics. But not one of the twelve to 
 whom Christ gave the commission ever read classic Greek. 
 This fact need not debar us from going to the classics, but 
 should teach us how to use them. The Greek used in the 
 New Testament, Apocrypha, and Septuagint was a differ- 
 ent dialect altogether from that of the classics.* The 
 difference need not here be noted only as applied to thi.j 
 word. The following facts are very important. 
 
 * And yet Dr. Graves (Graves-Ditzler Debate) says, page 527, " It is 
 not true that any standard lexicon distinguishes between classic Greek 
 and Kew Testament Greek in giving definitions of bapiidzo." Not one 
 standard lexicon exists that fails to note a difference. 
 
CHANGES IN MEANING. 97 
 
 CLASSIC AND NEW TESTAMENT GEEEK. 
 
 While, therefore, classic Greek is essential to the science 
 of language, its use could never determine the force bap- 
 tidzo has in the New Testament, as the following facts suf- 
 ficiently show : 
 
 1. Baptism, the noun baptisma, never appears in any 
 classic before Christ. It first appears in the New Testa- 
 ment. 
 
 2. In classic (heathen) Greek baptidzo is never applied 
 to a religious rite. 
 
 3. Nowhere is it, or any of its names, applied to relig- 
 ious washings, cleansings, or "initiations,'^ etc. 
 
 4. Nor does baptidzo or its nouns in classic Greek 
 ever apply to washing. 
 
 5. In classic Greek, after it came to imply immersion 
 as one of its meanings, it always leaves the object im- 
 mersed or submersed to whatever extent it put it into or 
 under the element. 
 
 6. In the New Testament and Apocrypha it never has 
 such force or use. 
 
 7. In classic Greek it often means to make drunk, 
 intoxicate. It never has such meaning in the New Testa- 
 ment or Apocrypha or LXX. 
 
 8. In the classics it often means to drown, over- 
 whelm,* submerge, leaving its object submerged always 
 when it so occurs, but never has such force in the New 
 Testament. 
 
 9. As a religious word immerse can not represent bap- 
 tidzo. The English of immerse all admit is to "sink in." 
 
 "* Some think baptisma means overwhelming sufferings once in New 
 Testament correct Greek text ; but all early fathers apply that to sheddino- 
 His blood on the cross, and the water that came out of His side. 
 
 7 
 
98 BAPTISM. 
 
 How can "sink in" or sink represent New Testament 
 baptism ? 
 
 10. As a classic word dip or even baptize in English 
 can not represent baptidzo in the classics, since the latter 
 means most generally to asj^erse, pour abuse upon, over- 
 whelm, intoxicate, overwhelm Avith debts, taxes, confusion, 
 drown. Dip does not represent any of these. 
 
 11. Every lexicon of any note and every Greek scholar 
 of any rank make a distinction between baptidzo in the 
 classics and the New Testament that is emphatic and 
 pointed, unless we except a few Baptist writers who are 
 governed wliolly by their prejudices on the question.* 
 
 These facts settle the question, if facts, along with the 
 authorities, can settle a question. f 
 
 As long as you hold an object under the water it is 
 immersed, it is not baptized. As soon as you take the 
 subject out of the element he is baptized, but he is not 
 
 * The fact that I presented these facts in substance in the Louisville 
 Debate, 1870, pp. 405-G, and in the Carrollton Debate, pp. 371-2, and 
 Drs. Wilkes and Graves never offered a reply, shows that they felt they 
 could not explain away these difficulties. 
 
 tYet Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 527) says, "It is not true that any 
 standard lexicon distinguishes between classic Greek and New Testa- 
 ment Greek in giving definitions of baptidzo." Let the reader turn to 
 our lexicons and see, as we cite them. There is not a standard Greek 
 lexicon in existence that fails to distinguish the difference. His own 
 Liddell & Scott, quoted correctly, in Prof. Drissler's letter, in the Debate, 
 page 495, the only fair rej)ort of a lexicon on his side in the entire book, 
 notes the distinction, however feebly or imperfectly, as compared with 
 Stokius, Schleusner, Passow, Post, Palm, and Pape. He garbles, sup- 
 presses, mistranslates, translates the same entirely different in other 
 places, and he has not copied in the Latin the whole New Testament 
 definition of a single lexicon quoted. He has not copied the original or 
 !i translation of a single German lexicon in full, but has left out what 
 they called the gener-al meaning of the word. In a word, he has man- 
 gled every lexicon in the Greek, Hebrew, or Syriac that he has cited — 
 not reporting a single one correctly. 
 
CHANGES IN MEANING. 99 
 
 immersed. Hence you can see the difference between 
 immersion as a mere act and baptism. 
 
 Baptism implies that which neither immersion, sprinJc- 
 ling, pouringy nor dipping, as mere actions, imply. This 
 is one of the constant blunders of immersionists — they 
 look at and for mere action as if it were only a secular 
 word. 
 
 12. As all immersionists agree that baptism is alluded 
 to often in both the Old Testament and New by the term 
 wash, rendered ^' bathe'' sometimes; that haptidzo repre- 
 sents the rachats, and louo, wash, of the Pentateuch (Co- 
 nant, Carson, Gale, Ingham, A. Campbell,* and all their 
 writers do this in common, and we all concur, and they 
 hold also that the wa^h of Titus iii, 5; Ephesians v, 25, 
 26 ; Acts xxii, 16, etc. refer to baptism), will they tell us 
 ichen and where the haptidzo of classic Greek ever took 
 such a meaning? If wash is derived from immerse, why 
 does haptidzo never mean to wash in the classics? They 
 know they are dumh as an oyster here. If a man can not 
 see from all this that mere classic usage outside of phil- 
 ology gives us no light on haptidzo directly as a religious 
 word, or word applied to the ordinance used in the New 
 Testament, he would not believe though one rose from 
 the dead. 
 
 13. The words immerse, sink, dip, often occur in the 
 Greek of the Old Testament and New Testament and 
 Apocrypha ; e. g. enduo, pontidzo, huthidzo, dupto, katapon- 
 tidzo, kataduo (Ps. Ixix, 2, 15; cxxiv, 4; Ex. xv, 4, 5, 
 10; 2 Mac. xii, 4; 1 Tim. vi, 9; Luke v, 7; Matt, xviii, 
 6; xiv, 13). Had the sacred writers intended immersion 
 or dipping it would have been expressed ])y one or more 
 
 * Gale, Wall, ii, pp. 95-107 ; A. Campbell, Chris. Baptism, pp. 167, 
 173-4, etc.; Ingham, pp. 383-386, etc. 
 
100 BAPTISM. 
 
 of these words. Not once is either of them used in the 
 Bible for baptism, either in speaking of it or alluding to 
 it in the various ways in which we find it alluded to in 
 the Bible. Such are the indisputable facts in proof. 
 
 Dr. Conant (Baptizein, p. 159) says of baptidzo, "The 
 word was a favorite one in the Greek language. When- 
 ever the idea of total submergence was to be expressed, 
 whether literally or metaphorically, this was the word 
 which first presented itself.^^ How utterly incorrect this 
 statement is will be realized when it is stated that baptidzo 
 never occurs at all in all the works of Homer describing 
 sea voyages, storms, battles, loss of ships, etc. ; nor once 
 in Hesiod, not once in ^^schylus, Sophocles, Herodotus, 
 Xenophon, Thucydides ; only once in Aristotle, twice in 
 Plato, not once in Theocritus, Bion, Moschus, Tyrtseus; 
 and only thirty-three times in all the voluminous Greek 
 writers from Homer till the birth of Christ, Conant him- 
 self being the judge! In one of these cases it is com- 
 pounded with a preposition. 
 
 Let us now call attention to another important canon. 
 
 Blackstone, the great standard in Europe and America 
 on law, gives us such a correct and unexceptional direction 
 here that we readily adopt it as the essence of all that can 
 be said here : 
 
 1. Blackstone xx, vol. 1, §11, 59-61 : "To interpret a 
 law we must inquire after the will of the maheVy which 
 may be collected either from the words, the context, the 
 subject-matter, the effects and consequence, or the spirit 
 and reason of the law. 
 
 " First. Words are generally to be understood in their 
 usual and most know^n signification, not so much regard- 
 ing the propriety of grammar, as their general and pop- 
 ular use. ... 
 
CHANGES IN MEANING. 101 
 
 "Second. If words happen to be still dubious, we may 
 establish their meaning from the context, etc. Of the same 
 nature and use is the comparison of a law icith laws, that 
 are made hy the same legislator, that have some affinity 
 with the subject, or that expeessi^y eelate to the same 
 point. . . . '^ 
 
 Here we are compelled to abandon classics, as not homo- 
 geneous with Bible Greek, to find the true force of the 
 purely religious words of the Bible. 
 
 Before presenting our proofs of the erroneousness of 
 all their assertions as to lexions, and having destroyed all 
 their theories and so-called axiomata, we wish to notice 
 two more favorite theories of the more humble and less 
 learned writers on the immersion side. 
 
 They assume it as a rule that if haptidzo means sprinkle, 
 pour, immerse, a person then is not baptized till all these 
 definitions be exhausted upon him ! Such an assertion is 
 too silly to be seriously noticed. AVe will simply answer, 
 however, thus : If because we discover three meanings these 
 three must all be exhausted on the subject ere he is bap- 
 tized, how then can our opponents ever baptize any one, 
 when A. C. himself gives to baptidzo thirteen or fourteen 
 renderings, among them drench, intoxicate, drown; and 
 putting all their great lights together, we have at least the 
 following meanings: "Soak,'' " dip,'' "imbrue," "drench," 
 "whelm," "overwhelm," "immerge," "sink," "plunge," 
 "intoxicate," "lay," "endure," "administer," "drown," 
 "overflow," "inundate," "plunge in a knife," "make 
 drunk," "wash," "steep" — twenty meanings. This will 
 do ! When we see them exhaust these definitions on their 
 candidates, we will all be besieged by the masses rather to ■ 
 exhaust only one definition on them. It will be seen at 
 the same time how silly also is Mr. A. C.'s fiest peecept 
 
102 BAPTISM. 
 
 FEOM THE DECALOGUE OF PHILOLOGY (Christian Bap- 
 tism, page 178), * viz. ^'That the definition of a word and the 
 word itself are alivays convertible terms.'' Italics his. He 
 then urges that you '' substitute it (the definition) in the 
 place of the original word defined or translated," and *^ in 
 all places the definition makes good sense." Otherwise it 
 is incorrect. Let now the reader apply the above defini- 
 tions, most of which are Mr. A. Campbell's, to the com- 
 mission and places in the New Testament where the orig- 
 inal is baptidzo, how will it do? "Go, disciple all nations, 
 soaking them," etc. "John the drunkard came, preaching 
 the intoxication of repentance." " He commanded them to 
 be drowned^' (Acts x, 46, 47). 
 
 Mr. A. C. then goes on : " The word sprinkle is always 
 followed by the substance sprinkled, and next by the ob- 
 ject. We can sprinkle ashes, dust, water, or blood, etc., 
 because the particles can be severed with ease, but can 
 we sprinkle a raanf AVe may sprinkle something upon 
 him, but it is impossible for any man to sprinhle another 
 in a river" (Christian Baptism, page 178). "This text 
 will hold to the end of the volume" (page 179). "Now, 
 as John can not pour the material James, neither can lie 
 sprinkle him. . . It is highly improper and ungrammatical 
 to use such a phrase" (page 179). "Some persons accus- 
 tomed to a very loose style see no impropriety in the phrase 
 ^sprinkle him — pour him/ because of the supplement in 
 their minds. . . Now, while the abbreviation may be tol- 
 eratedf so far as time is concerned, it is intolerable in physical 
 and grammatical propriety, because it is physically impos- 
 sible to scatter a man into particles like dust, or to pour 
 him out like water," etc. (page 179, 180). 
 
 "••■ We do not regard A. Campbell as a " lesser light" as an intellectual 
 man. He was a man of wonderful resources and personal influence — a 
 great man truly, but crude and defective in verbal criticism. 
 
CHANGES IN MEANING. 103 
 
 If Mr. C, Dr. Graves, etc. were as loosely constructed 
 as this so-called first precept in the decalogue of philol- 
 ogy, certainly they could be scattered as dust and absorbed 
 as water. They ought to have known — 
 
 1. That the Hebrew word mostly used for sprinkle, 
 nazah (Arabic, nazaeh), not only took a direct accusative 
 of the person, but meant to moisten, to make wet, irrigate ; 
 which words take direct accusatives constantly. And this 
 is the Hebrew word they cite. 
 
 2. They should have known that they contend that 
 nazah, to sprinkle, occurs in Isaiah lii, 15, where they in- 
 sist on rendering as the LXX do — ^'' astonish/^ which ruins 
 his decalogue. No preposition can come between here. 
 
 3. He ought to liave known that the two Latin words 
 generally used for sprinkle, lyerfundo and spargo, take a 
 direct accusative of the person ; i. e. Ovid's Met. iii, 190- 
 195, ''And sprinkled his vile face, and sprinkling his hair," 
 etc.* T\\Sit per f undo, to sprinkle, also meant to wet, be- 
 dew, etc., utterly destroying his rule. 
 
 4. That Gonspergo, to sprinkle, meant " to stain," to 
 "soil," etc., taking accusatives. 
 
 5. That the following quotations, which could be multi- 
 plied a thousand-fold, show the utter ignorance or intellect- 
 ual obtusity of these men : '' The demons . . . caused those 
 entering their temples to sprinkle themselves."t ''Sprinkle 
 one with songs," " sprinkle one with praise." | The 
 Greek, Latin, and Syriac of Psalm li, 9, reads "Sprinkle 
 me with hyssop;" § 2 Maccabees i, 21, "Sprinkle the wood 
 with water, etc." |] " He sprinkled me with a cloud of 
 
 * Vultunique ; perfudit ; spargensque comas. 
 
 t Justin Martyr : Vavri^eiv eavrovg. 
 
 % 'Paiviiv TLva vfiva — 'palvecv kv7.oyiaQ nva. Pindar viii, p. 81, etc. 
 
 § Rusi, pavrelg fie — asperges me. 
 
 j] ''Eircppdvai ro) vSari ra re ^vTm, etc. 
 
104 BAPTISM. 
 
 diist'^ (Ovid^s Met. ix, 35).* "Consult now Hebrews ix, 
 19, 21; xi, 28; xii, 24; x, 22; Latin of Isaiah lii, 15, as 
 well as Syriac, German, etc. In the face of the fact that 
 Webster, Worcester, all authors of most learning and taste 
 in all languages, use as constantly that form as any form 
 on earth whenever a subject is treated of that brings it up, 
 it is absolutely amazing that any man however obstupi- 
 fied by prejudice or besotted with party spirit could make 
 such blunders as the dhow e, followed also by so many.f 
 
 '^ Spar get me, etc. So perfudit caput; Castell : Sprinkled the head, 
 t After the above was written, Dr. J. K. Graves, in the Carrol Hon 
 
 debate, presses this silly rule with an earnestness that is astonishing, 
 
 wnich shows how desperate is their cause. 
 
GKEEK LEXICONS — FIRST ON BAPTO. 105 
 
 CHAPTER X. 
 
 Greek Lexicons — First on Bapto. 
 
 We now quote the lexicons. For forty years the 
 immersion pulpits have rung with the testimony of the 
 lexicons. As a sample of the many bold and daring 
 assertions we quote a few specimens from Mr. A. Camp- 
 bell. Remember that many of these authors are defining 
 classic Greek ; that their theories of immersion were built 
 on the false assumptions we have refuted, and which 
 Conant, Carson, Ingham, and others utterly refute ; that 
 Stokius, Schleusner, Suicer, etc. belong to that class; that 
 all these lexicons, save Passow (Greek), Rost, Palm, 
 Pape, Avere more or less translated from and based upon 
 those lexicons made in the dawn of the revival of Greek 
 literature, Avhen immersion was the enforced law of the 
 land, the general practice where they were made; affusion 
 being allowed only in cases of parties too weak or ill to 
 allow of " dipping." Though pedobaptists, they are all 
 based on immersion sources and under its influence. We 
 give the definitions of those recognized as the great mas- 
 ters of lexicography. 
 
 That the lexicons simply aim to present the current, 
 not the primary, meaning of bapto is evident, for, first, 
 the older ones, whom the rest follow — copy — did not dis- 
 cuss primaries at that time; second, the first citation 
 Stephanus gives is Aratus, seven centuries later than its 
 occurrence in Greek, four centuries later than we meet 
 
106 BAPTISM. 
 
 with it in other writers than Homer. If it be contended 
 that such lexicographers were discussing primaries thus, it 
 destroys their merit utterly and disqualifies them utterly 
 as witnesses. See fully on this under baptidzo hereafter. 
 
 We present a few authorities on bapto, the root of 
 baptidzo, not giving all they say, but a few; and we give 
 the first meanings they attach, as our opponents contend 
 these are the primary meanings. 
 
 A. Campbell says (Christian Baptism), "We have, 
 then, the unanimous testimony of all the distinguished 
 lexicographers known in Europe or America that the 
 proper and every- where current signification of baptizo 
 .... is to dip, plunge, or immerse, and that any other 
 meaning is tropical, rhetorical, or fanciful^' (§§ 126, 127, 
 147). 
 
 "They all (lexicons) without one single excep- 
 tion, give, dip, immerse, sink, or plunge, synonymously 
 expressive of the true, proper, and primary signification 
 of baptizo; not one of them giving sprinkle or pour as a 
 meaning of it, or any of its family.^' "It never has been 
 (Debate, p. 109) translated by either sprinkle or pour by 
 any lexicographer for eighteen hundred years ^' (Debate, 
 p. 139). " Can not show one (Greek dictionary) that gives 
 ivash as its first meaning" (Debate, p. 118). 
 
 1. Stokius: Bdrroj, bapto, tingo, moisten, stain. 
 
 2. Cyrilli Philexeni Glossaria: Bapto, to stain, moisten, 
 imbue, wet.* 
 
 3. Faciolatus and Forcellini give bapto as the synonym 
 of tingo, to moisten, wet. 
 
 4. Andrews's Latin Lexicon : Baptcc, painters. 
 
 5. An thon's Classical Dictionary: "Baptse. The priests 
 of Cotytto. The name is derived from /9a--w, to tinge or 
 
 * BcTT-w, inficio, tinguo, fuco^ imbuo, tingo. 
 
GEEEK LEXICONS — FIRST ON BAPTO. 107 
 
 dye, from their painting their cheeks and staining the 
 parts around the eyes like women. ^^ 
 
 6. Kiihner's Greek Grammar, § 143, p. 173: Bd-Kzw, 
 bapto, to ti7ige. 
 
 7. Dalzel, Grseci Majorum: Bdizrw (tingo), tinge. 
 
 8. Ursinus's Greek Lexicon : To stain, to dye, to wash or 
 cleanse (abluo), to sprinkle (aspergo). 
 
 9. Groves's Greek Lexicon : To dip, plunge, immerse, 
 wash, wet, moisten, sprinkle, steep, imbue, dye, stain, color. 
 
 10. Gazes: Bapto,^ to cast or thrust down. To stain, 
 to dye, and to sink. To pour any thing into or on any 
 thing. ... To shed forth, to wash, to wash the hands, etc. 
 
 11. Kouma, almost same as G., has hrecho, shed forth, 
 or sprinkle, wash, etc. 
 
 12. Stephanus, favoring immersion, gives ^^ paint ^' 
 (fuco), "stain," "moisten,'^ "imbue" as by far the most 
 prevalent meaning, and "pour upon.^f 
 
 Although we have only quoted a few lexicons, several 
 of the above not only being lexicographers but gramma- 
 rians, annotators on classic Greek, etc., such as Klihner, 
 yet his learning and accuracy are far, very far, above the 
 great body of lexicographers, and he is aiming at the jjri- 
 mary force, they at popular classic use, to aid students to 
 translate. We give more, however, on bapto by far than 
 A. Campbell and others. As immersionists appeal from 
 lexicons in disgust, we give more space to "authorities'' 
 appealed to as more valuable. 
 
 "•••Gazes, a native Greek lexicographer of immense research and 
 learning, defines f^aTrro) thus: 1. Bdllo) n jusaa (elg ttjv (Safvv) elg ri. 2. 
 
 ttTivvo). 6. AvT?M, ye/j.il^G). 
 
 t " Superfusa," this being by the great editor, Yalpey, Buddseus, 
 the older lexicographer, and ancient glosses do the same — give stain, 
 paint, moisten, imbue, as the prevailing use of bapto. 
 
108 BAPTISM. 
 
 Carson insists that ^^as to totality of immersion, the one 
 (bapto) is perfectly the equivalent to the other/^ baptidzo 
 (p. 23). A. Campbell, Gale, etc. fully adhere to the same. 
 
 Evidently a close inspection shows this to be utterly 
 untrue ; that bapto is far feebler than baptidzo, the former 
 never being applied in the classics to such bap)ting or bap- 
 tizing forces and elements as the waves of the sea, over- 
 flowing tides, great calamities, burdening debts, misfor- 
 tunes, etc., or torrents of abusive epithets. But that is 
 not our fight; if they admit what A. Campbell, Carson, 
 Gale, Ingham, Eipley, Cox, Mell, etc. do, it is not our 
 loss. Yet the truth requires this remark. But since all 
 agree that an appeal to original authors is alone a settle- 
 ment of the question, to them at once we will appeal. 
 
 Dr. A. Carson, Baptist, says of lexicons, "They are 
 not an ultimate authority. . . The meaning of a word must 
 ultimately be determined by an actual inspection of the pas- 
 sages in which it occurs'^ (p. 56). "The just and most 
 obvious method of ascertaining the meaning of a word 
 is to examine its origin and use in the language'' (p. 23). 
 Again, "Use is the sole arbiter of language" (p. 
 46). Capitals his. 
 
 President J. M. Pendleton, D.D., New York: "Lex- 
 icons indeed do not constitute the ultimate authority " 
 ("Why I am a Baptist," p. ^Q>). He repeats it (p. 96) and 
 adds, "Lexicographers are necessarily dependent on the 
 sense in which Avords are used, to ascertain their meaning. 
 But it is not impossible for them to mistake the sense. If 
 they do, there is an appeal from their definitions to the 
 usus loguendi, which is the ultimate authority (p. 96). 
 
 A. Campbell's Christian Baptism, p. 122: "The mean- 
 ing of a word is ascertained by the usage of those writers 
 and speakers whose knowledge and acquirements have 
 
GREEK LEXICONS — FIRST ON BAPTO. 109 
 
 made them masters of their own language. . . . We, in- 
 deed, try the dictionaries tliemselves by the classics, the ex- 
 tant authors of the language." See 127, 130-133, also. 
 To the same effect speaks Ingham (p. 43), and then quotes 
 Carson as above at length. Conant Avrites his whole work 
 on this assumption, appealing at once from the lexicons. 
 So does Professor Ripley and all the rest. We fully ac- 
 knowledge the justness of their position, though not their 
 inconsistency in such wholesale repudiation of lexical 
 authority. Yet we are bound to admit the principles they 
 act upon, that lexicons are not '^ultimate authority J' 
 
 But in appealing to the " ultimate authority," and mak- 
 ing an ^^ inspection of the passages in Avhich it occurs," 
 knowing that w^ords in all languages are always changing, 
 as A. Campbell and others tell us, and as demonstrated 
 in these pages so fully, we will not pursue the unscientific 
 and strange method of Carson, M. Stuart, Beecher (Dr. 
 Edward), Gale, and others of confounding and confus- 
 ing baptOj the root, with baptidzo. 
 
110 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER XI. 
 
 Bapto in Greek Weiters. 
 
 Drs. Gale, Carson, A. Campbell, M. Stuart, E. Beecber, 
 etc. confound hapto and haptidzo in a beterogeneous mass. 
 Tbey first cite a sentence with hapto in it, tben a few with 
 haptidzo in them, then a few with hapto, until only Greek 
 scholars can tell the difference in the words. Their mean- 
 ings are utterly confounded. Along with tbese, Conant, 
 Dale, Ripley, Vossius, Suicer, and all the rest have paid 
 no attention to, first, the dates* of authors, so as to trace 
 prunary uses, trace developed meanings, and arrive at 
 some conclusion tbat would be satisfactory, or at least give 
 promise of such a result some day; second, the relative 
 merits of writers in Greek ; third, periods of the Greek 
 language in which marked changes occur, as from Plato 
 to Polybius. In a word, they seem never to have thought 
 of the fundamental principle in all philology, that system, 
 order, development of language, cbronological order must 
 be observed. As a sample of the reckless manner of 
 treating this subject. Dr. Dale, in his late works on bap- 
 tism, when treating on hapto, its primary meaning, to be 
 determined by ^^ inspection of the passages" in which it 
 occurs, entirely ignores every rule or principle by which 
 a primary could be discovered. He cites his^rs^ passage to 
 
 * Conant and others often give the age in which an author was born 
 or wrote, but have no chronological order at all. That is the point of 
 value. 
 
BAPTO IN GREEK WRITERS. Ill 
 
 find a primary from an author who flourished some twelve 
 hundred years later than Homer ! He inspects a passage 
 nearly a hundred years later than ^schylus. And he uses 
 the word primary in the sense we do and in that of all 
 scholars on the subject of primaries. Such has been the 
 unscientific method on this subject. Nor does he ever 
 hint that between even Plato and his Iron-age author 
 there had been a great breakdown in the language — a 
 fact auy lexicographer of note would have told him of in 
 his introduction. Is it a wonder that no definite philolog- 
 ical facts could be settled upon, but merely some surface 
 facts discovered but not explained. We will see more of 
 this under baptidzo. 
 
 To trace the primary meaning, then, of bapto, the uni- 
 versally admitted root of baptidzo, we will give all the 
 earliest occurrences of the word that have been found, 
 unless by accident some have escaped our observation, 
 which would not materially change the question, though 
 if it did it would likely be in our favor, since the other 
 side has produced all they could, and we select mainly 
 from them. 
 
 We will begin by giving a summary of Drs. M. Stuart 
 and Dale, when producing all the texts they could on bapto, 
 giving the ages in which they lived, and without any scien- 
 tific order. And Dale at least wants to prove immerse as 
 the primary of baptidzo, and dip as that of bapto. Dale 
 begins with ^lian, A. D. third century. 
 
 He renders bapto dip, fourteen times; dye, fourteen 
 times; imbue, seven times; temper, two times; smear, one 
 
112 BAPTISM. 
 
 time; stain, one time; wash, four times; moisten, two 
 times; wet, one time — forty -seven. 
 
 Of these forty-seven cases, as rendered by him, we have 
 
 1. Thirty-three against fourteen for dip. 
 
 2. Some of these cases are partial dips, a very slight 
 and not a total penetration into the element by the object 
 said to be hapted. 
 
 3. In no case was there an immersion, i. e. sinhing. 
 
 4. All the oldest authorities fail to furnish a case of 
 dip or plunge, when Dale was seeking for proof of dip as 
 the primary meaning. We will give his renderings of the 
 earliest occurrences of the word. In Homer, stain, temper. 
 In ^schylus, temper. In Herodotus, wash. In Aristoph- 
 anes, smear, wash, dye, dip. In Sophocles, stain, temper. 
 In Euripides, stain. In Aristotle, moisten. In Plato, dye. 
 This is a sample, though we may not have counted as ac- 
 curately as in the other counts, where we took greater pains 
 still, more being demanded. 
 
 5. For five hundred years after bapto appears no case 
 of a literal dip occurs, but stain, where it is by affusion, 
 temper, wash. 
 
 6. In the next two hundred years dip appears as a 
 meaning only twice against a large majority of cases 
 pointing to affusion, aspersion, as the modes by which the 
 objects were stained, moistened, dyed, colored, washed, 
 smeared, etc. 
 
 II. M. Stuart's summary on bapto. 
 
 So strongly does Stuart favor the immersionists in their 
 over-estimation that Dr. J. R. Graves, 1856, published his 
 book on baptism, taunting the other side that they would 
 not publish it. 
 
BAPTO IN GEEEK WRITERS. 113 
 
 1. Of fifty-six occnrreiices in classic and non-Biblical 
 usage he renders it by dip, dye, color, smear (Dr. Carson 
 and other Baptists render it " smear"), thrust, bathe, tinct- 
 ure, tinge, plunge, wash — ten renderings. 
 
 2. In these fifty-six cases he has seven full dips, nine 
 where it was partial, not total — sixteen for dip. This 
 gives forty-nine against seven total dips, or forty against 
 sixteen for dip, partial and total. It is forty-nine against 
 seven plunge — they doubtful, very. There is no immerse. 
 He gives thirty-three against the sum-total for dip and 
 plunge. 
 
 3. If, as our opponents assume at least that current 
 usage determines the primary meaning, then dip is not the 
 primary meaning of bapto, and immerse does not even 
 enter court with a plea. H. Stephanus, though educated 
 under all the prejudices of an education among immer- 
 sionists, shows in his great Thesaurus that moisten, stain, 
 paint (fuco), prevail by great odds over dip as a meaning. 
 
 BAPTO FROM ONE THOUSAND TO FIVE HUNDRED YEARS 
 BEFORE CHRIST. 
 
 Two writers occur in this period who use baj^to each 
 twice. 
 
 Homer, before Christ one thousand years, by popular 
 date, round number. 
 
 1. Batrach v, 218: Of a frog pierced and slain in 
 battle he says, ^^He fell without even looking upward, 
 and the lake (ebapteto) was tinged with blood.'^ * Here the 
 effusion of the blood from the delicate veins of a pierced 
 frog is what bapted the lake. Small w^ere the drops, deli- 
 cate indeed was the stream from such a source. Yet the 
 
 * 'EfiaTrrero 6' a'ifxari. Ic/avjj. 
 
114 BAl^ISM. 
 
 lake is bapted with the affusion of the few drops of blood 
 that spun out from its veins. Here, too, we have, first, a 
 clear case of very delicate effusion, aspersion, from bapto. 
 Second, it shows how stain, color, tinge, dye, came as a 
 meaning of bapto. 
 
 2. Odyssey i, 302 : " As when a smith tempers (bapfei) 
 a hatchet or huge pole-ax with cold water," or " in cold 
 water. '^ Here bapto may imply such a partial dip as we 
 often witness in the shops where smiths temper ^' a huge 
 pole-ax '^ or a hatchet. The edge is slightly dipped. But 
 from the context this does not seem to have been the allu- 
 sion. It was more likely the well-known process of put- 
 ting some cold water on the anvil, placing the ax or hatchet 
 on it, and striking a blow Avith the hammer, which makes 
 an explosion or report louder than an ordinary gun. This 
 is done constantly in tempering axes and hatchets. 
 
 1. We have in Homer no immerse for bapto. 
 
 2. We may barely have a case of partial dip, but it is 
 extremely doubtful. 
 
 3. More likely in both cases it is aspersion. 
 
 4. Any way, one of them is a clear case of aspersion in 
 this the first known Greek author. 
 
 iESCHYLUS ON BAPTO, BORN FIVE HUNDEED AND TWEN. 
 TY-NINE YEARS BEFORE CHRIST. 
 
 1. "For the wife has deprived each husband of lif( 
 staining (bapsasa) the sword by slaughter.'^ ^ Here is a 
 case easily determined. It does not say the sword Avas 
 plunged into some penetrable matter — mersed or dipped. 
 The sword is stained by slaughter — bapted by the blood of 
 slain men in whatever way cut down. 
 "Premeth, v, 861. 
 
BAPTO IN GREEK WRITERS. 115 
 
 2. The second case is thus given : ^' This garment, stained 
 (ebaphaen) by the blood of ^gisthus, is a witness to me." 
 
 Here the blood spurts out from the wound and be- 
 sprinkles or aifuses the garment, staining it, and witnesses 
 of the violent death of the victim. 
 
 1. Here again, in the next writer we have after Homer 
 who uses baptOj bapto is used for a clear case of affusion. 
 
 2. We see again the mode of the staining, the coloring, 
 the tinging, dyeing of bapto. 
 
 3. Notice well that in neither of the cases where bajjto 
 is used for staining is it a dip. The old process has always 
 been to take the latet^ cases of bapto after it took on the 
 later meanings, and where the art of dyeing by dipping 
 was discovered, or else at least where it from stain, color, 
 came to apply readily to dyeing, then to dyeing by any 
 mode ; hence by dipping, then to dip in any object, and 
 securing this meaning in late, Iron-age authors especially, 
 they assume it as the primary meaning and explain all else 
 from that ! Even Dale adopts this process. 
 
 We have now traced bapto through five hundred years. 
 It occurs four times. It is doubtful as to mode in one 
 case. Three are cases of effusion and affusion. That is, 
 .the blood effused from wounds and affused or stained the 
 objects besprinkled or affused. Hence its primary mean- 
 ing is readily determined by all the established laws of 
 language — sprinkle. 
 
 BAPTO FROM FIVE HUNDRED TO FOUR HUNDRED AND 
 TWENTY-NINE YEARS BEFORE CHRIST. 
 
 1. Sophocles, born B.C. 495; "Thou hast well stained 
 (ebapsas) thy sword (pros) by means of [or with respect to] 
 the army of the Greeks." * This is a case like the above. 
 
 * Ajax, V, 95. 
 
116 BAPTISM. 
 
 2. Herodotus, born B.C. 484, in Euterpe : (1) " Going to 
 the river he washed (ebapse) himself." f Here he washed 
 himself, not into, but at the river. He simply went (epi) 
 to the river and washed. The word himself is merely 
 added by us. Pharaoh's daughter (Ex. ii, 5) "washed her- 
 self (epi) at the river.'' We see this was the custom in 
 Egypt. Herodotus is here telling of an Egyptian. Judith 
 (xii, 7) " washed herself — baptized — (epi) at the fountain." 
 
 (2) '^Colored garments^' (bebammena, i. e. bapto). This 
 is the first case of the application of bapto to garments 
 colored or dyed in the ordinary sense, the others being as 
 seen stained, sprinkled with blood, or the blood gushed 
 out upon them. In what way the garments were colored 
 does not appear. Let us suppose it was by dipping in 
 dye. Then we have these facts. Six hundred years before 
 this bapto applied to sprinklings of blood, that of course 
 stained. Forty years earlier than Herodotus it is applied 
 to affusions of blood, staining the object on which it falls. 
 Here we see dye comes from stain, stain from effusions, 
 from sprinkle. From applications of water come wash, 
 a very rare meaning of bapto. 
 
 3. Euripides, born B.C. 480. Here is the first case of 
 bapto clearly indicating a dip^ a partial dip only, when a 
 pitcher is dipped sufficiently into water to get water and 
 immediately withdrawn. Hence, " Dip a vessel and bring 
 sea-water." " Dip up Avith pitchers." He uses it for a 
 more violent dip still. His sounding sci meter "he plunged 
 [ebapse) into the flesh." Here in all cases notice the ob- 
 ject dipped and the object "plunged" is immediately with- 
 drawn, our Avord "plunge" not being the exact equivalent 
 of bapto even in these cases. In later days Lycophron 
 says, " Plunged his sword into the viper's bowels." Dion- 
 
 t Bdf £7r^ Tov TTorajuov kOdipe, 
 
BAPTO IN GKEEK WIIITEES. 117 
 
 ysius of Halicarnassus, ^'Plunge {ba2:)sas) his spear between 
 the other's ribs/' He '^at the same instant plunged his 
 into his belly.'' In these, and in all that the strongest 
 immersionists can produce, there is no total immersion. 
 Where the sword, the spear, the lance is bapted only a 
 part, and in many instances only a small part, enters the 
 object. It is in cases where the sword, the spear is at 
 once withdrawn. 
 
 4. Aristophanes, born about B.C. 450. He uses bapto 
 more frequently. 
 
 (1) Speaking of Magnes, an old comic writer of Ath- 
 ens, he says, "Smearing himself (baptomenos) with frog- 
 colored paints" {batracheiois). 
 
 (a) Here bapto applies where there is no dip, no plunge. 
 (6) The coloring matter is applied to the object bapted. 
 Putting coloring matter on his face bapted it. 
 
 (2) "Do not adorn yourself with garments of varie- 
 gated appearance, colored (bapton) at great cost." Here 
 the colors seemed to be the effect of needle-work, as often 
 now occurred, taking different colors and working them 
 into garments, thus bapting them. Bapto came thus to 
 apply to nature's colors, to birds of color, precious stones 
 of beautiful colors, etc. Hence Aristophanes — 
 
 (3) Ornis baptos, " a colored bird." 
 
 (a) Dipping, plunging is out of the question here. 
 
 (6) The variegated plumage w^as bapted thus as it grew. 
 Thus bapto applies where no mode is specially involved, 
 the coloring matter effecting the bapted condition by the 
 most delicate touches. To put it nicely, here bapto by 
 streams or parts of drops so small that only a microscope 
 could discover them to our eyes effected a bapted condi- 
 tion. The birds and stones were bapted by these delicate 
 affusions and infusions. Hence Greeks, Hebrev/s, and 
 
1 1 8 BAPTISM. 
 
 Arabians used these phrases: "Sprinkled with colors/^ 
 " Sprinkled with gray.^' Again, Aristophanes — 
 
 (4) A bully speaking says, " Lest I stain you (bapso) 
 with a Sardinian hue (6om?7ia).'^* Here bajpto occurs 
 twice in its diiferent forms. 
 
 (a) There is no dip, no plunge. 
 
 (6) The meaning, as all lexicons agree, is, that the 
 bully would strike the other party on the mouth with his 
 fist, give him a bloody mouth or nose. The blood issuing 
 out Avould stain his face. 
 
 (c) Clearly enough the bapto here bapted the object by 
 affusion. 
 
 (5) The next case is, " First wash (baptos) the wool in 
 warm water.^' While the wool Avould in this case un- 
 doubtedly be dipped in the water to become saturated 
 with the water, yet the word bapto applies to the process 
 of washing the wool, which was effected by rubbing it in 
 the hands or otherwise while saturated with water. Mere 
 dipping into the warm water would not wash the wool. 
 
 (6) In his day already bapto was strengthened by a 
 })reposition to make a clear case of dip, en being employed 
 for that purpose. 
 
 In this noted author, then, six times he uses bapto. In 
 not a single case did he use it for dip, plunge, immerse. 
 To make it mean dip he strengthens it by en, i. e. embapto, 
 as Luke, the nearest to a classic writer of all New Testa- 
 ment writers. 
 
 6. Hippocrates, born B.C. 430. This noted Greek, 
 quoted by Carson (Baptist) says of a dyeing substance, 
 " When it drops (epitaxce) upon the garments they are 
 stained {baptetai), dyed. 
 
 Notice now — 
 
 ■■■• Acharn, act 1, scene 1. 
 
BAPTO IN GEEEK WIUTEKS. 119 
 
 1. We have had no case where a complete envelopment 
 even for a moment has been effected by bapto from Ho- 
 mer to Hippocrates. 
 
 2. Herodotus used bapto for dyed or ^'colored gar- 
 ments/^ but how colored we did not see. 
 
 3. Hippocrates gives us the mode, the process by which 
 the garments he names were bapted. The dyeing matter 
 ^^ drops upon the garments/^ 
 
 In this way, by this mode_, "they are dyed" {baptetai). 
 Is there controversy over the mode of this bapting? Yet 
 immersionists tell us dyeing, coloring, is always by dip- 
 ping. Justice requires that we say Dr. Carson is an ex- 
 ception, and admits it is effected by sprinkling, but thinks 
 bapto primarily meant dip, then dye by dipping, then dye 
 by any mode. But he, as all the rest, never took the 
 matter up chronologically, but selected nearly all his 
 proof-texts as Campbell, Dale, Gale, etc. do from later 
 and Iron-age Greek, then explains the early use from the 
 later ! No scholar will now call that science or philology 
 or good sense. 
 
 We have now gone over the period from Homer to 
 Plato, who comes next. In all these periods of six hun- 
 dred years among the most illustrious writers Greece 
 ever produced, we find the following exhibit: 
 
 1. Not once does bajdo mean immerse, i. e. sink. 
 
 2. Not once does it totally dip the whole object. 
 
 3. Only three times do we find it for a partial dip. 
 
 4. I7i no instance does it apply to, or desci^ibe the act per- 
 formed by Baptists when they baptize. 
 
 5. It frequently applies to the mode of those ivho baptize 
 by affusion, and to the exact mode, effusion, aspersion, though 
 not any single, exclusive mode, and the application in 
 any decent mode is what we require in baptism. 
 
120 BAPTISM. 
 
 6. The prevailing action or mode involved in hajpto as 
 yet is aspersion, effusion, affasion. 
 
 7. The primary force of the word is aspersion. 
 
 BAPTO FROM PLATO TO ARISTOTLE, ETC. 
 
 1. Plato, born B.C. 429, uses bapto repeatedly, and uses 
 it for dye and dip, and as we promptly grant this we need 
 not quote passages. 
 
 2. Alcibiades, born B.C. 400, alluding to the offensive 
 and opprobrious epithets applied to him by a comedian in 
 the play called Baptae, says, '^ You aspersed (bapjtes) me 
 [Avith the abusive epithets] in your play.^^ 
 
 (1) Here hapto is used by both parties — the one call- 
 ing his play Baptae, in a metaphorical sense, applying 
 hapto to speech. 
 
 (2) All metaphorical use is based on a prior literal use 
 of words, as no one will question. 
 
 (3) In Greek, as Ave see elsewhere, and elaborately, 
 and in Arabic, in Latin, and in English, abuse is repre- 
 sented by words meaning to sprinkle and to pour con- 
 stantly. '^ Foul aspersion/' " base aspersion," is a com- 
 mon English phrase. ''Pour abuse upon'' is another. 
 We never say that we ''dip a man in abuse," "plunge 
 him into abuse." 
 
 (4) Here is, therefore, a clear use of hajAo by both 
 parties, and by Greek comedians generally, that show 
 s]>rinkle to be the primary meaning of hapto. And the 
 writer uses the words " streams more bitter," as the means 
 with which he, in a volley of words, would haptize him, 
 not merely hapt him. 
 
 3. The great Aristotle, born B.C. 384, comes next in 
 chronological order as using the word. He uses the word 
 
BAPTO IN GREEK WRITERS. 121 
 
 where there is a partial dip, and where also objects are col- 
 ored, and where dyeing is by dipping. Then also thus, 
 speaking of a dyeing substance: "Being pressed, it moist- 
 ens {baptei) and dyes (anthidei) the hand.^^ 
 
 (1) There is no dip, plunge, immerse here. 
 
 (2) Like nearly all the cases cited, it is a literal use of 
 bapto, not a metaphorical one. 
 
 (3) The fluid came out upon the hand — effusion, was 
 the literal mode by which the object was moistened. 
 
 (4) It is such a delicate effusion that it merely moist- 
 ens the hand. 
 
 (5) The effect of its being coloring matter that was 
 pressed was to dye or stain the hand; and bajjto does not 
 express that, but anthidzo does, which primarily applies to 
 sprinklings. See the word and the lexicons on it in the 
 next chapter. Anthidzo is defined "to sprinkle,^' "stain,'' 
 " color," " strew with flowers,'' " paint." 
 
 4. Diodorus Siculus, B.C. 69-30: "Coats (baptais) col- 
 ored and flowered with various colors." "Native warmth 
 has tinged {ebapsen) the above varieties of the growth of 
 things [i.e. birds, precious stones, etc.] before mentioned."^ 
 
 Omitting dates now, the v/riters of this period speak 
 on this wise. Plutarch, vi, p. 680 : "Then perceiving that 
 his beard was colored {baptomenon) and his head." ^lian : 
 "The Indians dyed (baptontai) their beards." Marcus 
 Anton ius speaks of the soul tinged (baptetai) by the 
 thoughts. "Tinge (bapto) it, then, by accustoming your- 
 self to such thoughts." 
 
 Here still bapto continues to be used where, 
 
 1. Tiiere is no dip, plunge, and immerse is never a 
 meaning of the word. 
 
 2. It is applied where the coloring matter is applied to 
 
 *Tom. iii, 315; xi, 119. 
 
122 BAPTISM. 
 
 the hair, to the beard, and in many cases to the cheeks, 
 the eyes, as in the case of the priests of Cotytto, given 
 elsewhere. 
 
 3. In only two cases yet have we found it applied to 
 simple water, and no immersion was found ; and we have 
 come down to the period after Christ. 
 
 BAPTO IN DANIEL. 
 
 In the Greek version by Theodotian, second century 
 after Christ, hapto occurs several times, as follows: 
 
 1. Daniel iv, 33 : ^^And his body was wet (ehaptae) with 
 the dew {apo) from heaven.'^ 
 
 2. Daniel v, 21 : '^And his body was wet {ehaptae) with 
 the dew {apo) from heaven. Here, 
 
 (1) Nebuchadnezzar's body was bapted with the falling 
 dew — a clear case of gentle affusion. 
 
 (2) It is a case where water pure is the element, not 
 bloojd or coloring matter, paint, etc., as so often we found. 
 
 (3) To parade, as Gale, Carson, and others do the co- 
 pious dews of that country, is simply ridiculous. What 
 do we care for the copious fall of dew? Was his body 
 dipped into it, covered up by the process, or did the '^co- 
 pious dew" fall upon him ^^from heaven ''? 
 
 (4) Jerome and other ancient Avriters translate two of 
 these passages by ^' sprinkled'^ with the dew of heaven."* 
 (Dan. iv, 20). 
 
 (5) The Arabic translates it sprinkled. The Latin 
 version in Walton on Daniel v, 21, perfusam, ^^ sprinkled 
 'with the dew of heaven." 
 
 ''^ Conspergatur and infunderis, sprinkled, besprinkled. Chaldee, chap, 
 iv. 21, ^r??*! ^*5? ''??"' ; Vulgate, Et rore cceli conspergatur, v. 22, 
 Chal. ■ I - '. from th'^ dew: i ''-ri."". mfanrhTis. 
 
BAPTO IN GREEK WRITERS. 123 
 
 (6) Tlie Latin version in Origen's works renders Dan- 
 iel iv, 22 (bapto^^ in Greek), by ''his body shall be sprin- 
 kled with the dew of heaven" (chap. iv). 
 
 BAPTO IN NEW TESTA:^[ENT AND SEPTUAGINT. 
 
 Bapto occurs three times in the New Testament, emhapto 
 twice. Of these three cases 
 
 1. Two are very partial, very slight dips for the pur- 
 pose of moistening the object. It is simply one case re- 
 ported by the writers Matthew (xxvi, 23), John (xiii, 26), 
 Mark (xiv,- 20) — '^ He that dippeth his hand with me in the 
 dish ;'^ ^' I shall give a sop [morsel] when I have dipped 
 it;" ^^And when he had dipped the sop" — morsel. j As 
 Luke uses emhapto in the dip of the tip of the finger in 
 the case of Lazarus, it being compounded with a strength- 
 ening word en, it does not come in for discussion, though 
 we do not object to it on any other ground, of course. 
 
 These may all be held, then, as just one case in the New 
 Testament where hapto is used. 
 
 1. In this case no immersion occurs. 
 
 2. No plunge occurs. 
 
 3. The dip was only a touching of the morsel of food 
 to the element to moisten it for eating. 
 
 The other case is Revelation xix, 13, ^^And he was 
 clothed with a vesture [garment] (bebammenon) sprinkled 
 with blood." In our version the immersionist translators 
 
 * Greek to aufid aov (ia^rjcErat, et de Tore coeli corpus tuum aspergetur. 
 
 tin Exodus xii, 22; Leviticus xiv, 16, 51; iv, 17; ix, 9, etc., hapio 
 occurs in the Greek version made third century before Christ. 1. In 
 no case was it immersion. 2. In most cases the object was merely 
 touched to or by the bapting fluid. 3. In no case was there envelop- 
 ment. We will examine the cases under the Hebrew tabhal, which see. 
 
124 BAPTISM. 
 
 of James render it ^Mipped in blood." How untrue and 
 absurd ! 
 
 1. The Syriac renders this case by ^'sprinkle/' That 
 part of the Peshito was made later than the rest, yet by 
 the close of the second century or dawn of the third. 
 
 2. The old Itala, made undoubtedly by the close of the 
 apostolic age, renders hapto here by " sprinkle'^ — aspersa. 
 
 3. The Coptic, third century, translates it "sprinkle." 
 
 4. The Basmuric, third century, renders it "sprinkle." 
 
 5. The Sahidic, second century, renders it " sprinkle." 
 
 6. The ^thiopic, fourth century, renders it "sprinkle." 
 
 7. The Lutheran, sixteenth century, renders it "sprin- 
 kle" {besprcnrjt). 
 
 8. The Lusitanian has it " sprinkle" (salpacado). 
 
 9. Bapto is translated sprinJde by the learned Greek, 
 Iren^eus, born by common chronology four years before 
 John the Apostle's death; some put it later. Irenseus 
 was bishop of Lyons and a great defender of the purity 
 of the church. He cites Revelation xix, 13, where in the 
 Greek it is bapto — hehammenon — and translates it, "And 
 he was clothed with a vesture sprinkled with blood."* 
 
 10. Origen, the most learned father and commentator 
 the world produced in sixteen hundred years, born some 
 eighty-six years after John's death, translates hapto, in 
 the same passage, " SPRiXKLEDf with blood." 
 
 11. Hippolytus, the learned Greek archbishop, a.d. 
 220, copies the common reading of Revelation xix, 13, 
 hapto, thus : "And he was clothed with a vesture [heham- 
 menon — hapted, in our version dipj)ed~\ in blood," and 
 adds " See, then, brethren, how the vesture, speinkled 
 with blood, denoted," etc.J 
 
 * Against Heresies, b. iv, chap. 20 ; c. xi. 
 t EppavTia/xhov, errantis'tnenon. 
 ± Atrainr-t Nnotii:;. ol-iaT). xv. 
 
BAPTO IN GREEK V/RITERS. 125 
 
 12. The oldest and best copy of the Bible in the world, 
 Tischendorff's manuscript^ made about A. D. 325, trans- 
 lates it besprinkled^^ thus : '^And he was clothed with a 
 vesture besprinkled with blood/'f 
 
 In the light of these records we see the following facts 
 made patent : 
 
 1. That many lexicons, being deeply steeped in immer- 
 sion prejudices, selected their texts on bapto from the few 
 cases, mostly in Dark-age Greek, where it also meant dip, 
 stain, dye, and gave not one of those cases which we have 
 presented above. 
 
 2. The utter unreliability of the parties who tell us 
 that bapto always means to dip, immerse, etc. 
 
 3. That from the earliest use of the word it applied to 
 sprinklings, even the most partial and delicate, and con- 
 tinued to be so applied in later Greek. 
 
 4. That it constantly applied to effusions, to cases 
 " merely touched in part or in whole," by the fluid. 
 
 5. That sprinkle was the primary import of the word. 
 
 6. That dip is a late and a derived meaning. 
 
 * TiepipEpafihov, perireramenon^ besprinkled. 
 
 t To those who seek to evade the force of this by saying as Gale did, 
 when it was only known that Origen thus rendered it till we brought 
 out the rest, that Origen had a copy (codex) with sprinkle in it, which 
 A. Campbell indorsed in the Rice debate, and Tischendorff's being 
 found with besprinkled in it, and that Origen merely copied that, we 
 reply: 1. Tischendorff's MS. dates about one himdred and ten years 
 later than Origen — how could Origen copy him? 2. Irenasus so trans- 
 lated it long before Origen did, 3. Origen's was not copied from Tisch- 
 endorfP's copy, for it has the \oord different — one is crraniismeyion, the 
 oi\\QV 2)erireramenon ; very different in form — one raino, other raniidzo; 
 and a compounded word. 4. Hippolytus cojnes hapto, then translates it. 
 
126 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER XII. 
 
 Bapto — Primary Meaning Continued. 
 
 It is remarkable that the root of baptklzo should mean, 
 in addition to sprinkle, moisten, imbue, wash; also to 
 stain, color, dye. It seems more so when we learn that 
 the leading Avord in use among Latin Christians of the 
 earliest ages — Tertullian, Cyprian, etc. — for baptize, when 
 not using by transfer the word itself, was ^' tingo,'' which 
 primarily means to moisten, make wet, where it is by 
 tears, by dcAV, drops of liquid, etc., yet comes to mean 
 to stain, color, dye, dip. Tahhal (in Hebrew, baptize) 
 means to stain, but rarely ; while the Syriac and Arabic 
 tzeva — baptize — means to stain, to dye, or color, and applies 
 to colored birds, animals, etc. It will be seen that all 
 these words, save tingo, mean primarily to sprinkle, to 
 shed or pour forth, applied to liquids; they mean also to 
 moisten, make wet. 
 
 From this substantial agreement of all these words in 
 meaning — defined alike by lexicons generally, vindicated 
 by an inspection of original sources — we have a clue, a 
 key to some great and essential philological principles. 
 By these we can arrive at a correct conclusion. 
 
 We have examined bapto from the standpoint of sci- 
 entific investigation. We saw sprinkle as the primary 
 force of bapto. In a future chapter we will see a great 
 number of words primarily meaning to sprinkle coming 
 
BAPTO — PRIMARY MEANING CONTINUED. ]27 
 
 to mean all that bapto means and lapping over all that 
 baptidzo means. Let us here trace the process by which 
 all these meanings are derived from bapto. It must not 
 be forgotten that 6ap^o appears in Greek literature as 
 early as Homer but only a very few times in centuries, 
 being a rare word; that baptidzo does not appear for 
 quite five hundred years later, the incautious writer, like 
 Ingham, not telling the reader that the Orpheus, ^sop, 
 etc. he quotes are spurious and of a late date. Conant 
 shows that fact. We have it demonstrated from the in- 
 spection of cases and dates that bapto applied to cases of 
 affusion, eifusion, many centuries before it meant dye. It 
 meant to stain centuries before it meant to dye. It meant 
 to wash as early as it meant to color in any way beyond 
 a stain effected by slight aspersion. These being historic 
 facts are way-marks to help us. 
 
 BAPTO AND PHILOLOGY. 
 
 Now, no one believes that the art of dyeing was sud- 
 denly invented and practiced. Such arts are always the 
 result of accidental discovery from seeing the effects of 
 the elements in nature. Though many saw apples fall 
 and tea-kettles boil and lift their coverings, it was centu- 
 ries before a Newton applied the suggestions of the one 
 or a Watt or Fulton the power of the other. 
 
 A person from breaking or bruising a weed, herb, or 
 shell that had coloring matter in it ; from an incision in 
 the bark of a tree causing a spurting out of juice, sap ; 
 from bursting a grape or berry on the hands or clothes, 
 Avould thus earliest discover the staining qualities of the 
 attaching liquid. Seeing the effects, it might be such a 
 color as would please some parties very much, and it 
 
128 BAPTISM. 
 
 would be natural to go to work to apply the matter to 
 color their faces, beard, hair, or garments. Baj)to applies 
 earlier to staining by centuries, we saw, than by dyeing. 
 When they had used it thus for a time it would sooner or 
 later turn out that parties would extend the discovery, 
 and get enough of the coloring element to prepare orna- 
 ments, adorn their clothes, and finally dilute the coloring 
 matter in water, or collect enough to dye their garments. 
 They would learn to dip the garments; first no doubt 
 parts of it in one dye, parts in another, so as to have the 
 "variegated garments," or, as in some cases, resort to 
 needle-work. Whatever the word applied to the first 
 stain, where it was by the slightest aspersion or dropping 
 of the matter, it would remain the word through all the 
 varying fortunes of the art. In the case under consider- 
 ation BAPTO was the word. It must not be supposed that 
 hapto was the favorite word. As late as the fourth ceji- 
 tury before Christ that learned and careful writer, Aris- 
 totle, when speaking of the dyeing substance even, does 
 not use hapto for dye but for moisten — if pressed " it moist- 
 ens {hapto) and colors (anthidzci) the hand" — showing 
 that hapto represented moisten of the slightest kind much 
 more correctly than color or dye. That speaks volumes. 
 It demonstrates additionally from the historic order that 
 color, dye, is derived, and derived from it as meaning to 
 moisten, not from to dip. Thus history, philology, and 
 common observation all harmonize. All the historic light 
 we have sustains these facts. The earliest colorings we 
 read of, save one or two soon to be noticed, occur in Exo- 
 dus XXV, 4; xxvi, 7, 31, 36, etc., which were purple. 
 The Scriptures give no light whence these colors came. 
 1 Maccabees iv, 23, calls them "purple (apo) from the 
 sea." It is ao^reed that the colors were obtained " from 
 
BAPTO — PRIMARY MEANING CONTINUED. 121) 
 
 the juice of certain species of the shell-fish ^^ (Kitto). 
 ^'The majority'^ of ancients ascribe the discovery ^'to the 
 Tyrian Hercules, whose dog, it is said, instigated by hun- 
 ger, broke a certain kind of shell-fish on the coast of Tyre, 
 and his mouth becoming stained of a beautiful color, his 
 master was induced to try its properties on wool, and gave 
 his first specimens to the king, who admired the color so 
 much that he restricted the use of it by law to the royal 
 garments/^* The Tyrians practiced coloring thus for 
 ages. As the Hebrews, Syrians, Arabians, and Chaldeans 
 were all of kindred blood, language, and habit, their hab- 
 its of coloring most likely began there. It is worth note 
 that one of the leading words for baptize in Arabic, occur- 
 ring often in the New Testament (tsava-tsevagha) in its 
 noun-form, means the juice of a vine. But all this aside, 
 we prefer and rely on the development and science of 
 language, along with the record of facts. 
 
 Facts now. First, bapto applied to sprinkling, to effu- 
 sions. This was its first primary force. Second, it meant, 
 consequently, both to moisten and stain; for to sprinkle 
 or effuse with staining elements, blood, juices, etc., both 
 moisten and stain result. Yet it does not necessarily ap- 
 ply to staining; it always implies moistening or wetting. 
 It may be assumed that there is no case of bapto, a verb, 
 without moisten. This is the only meaning or idea that 
 never forsakes it in a single instance. Third, it never 
 means to dye where it is by dipping till the last half of 
 the fourth century before Christ, so far as facts go. Its 
 corresponding Hebrew tabhal, in earlier Hebrew only cor- 
 responding, the stain — molunein, in Greek ; tingo, Latin ; 
 tabhal, Hebrew — is even in Genesis xxxvii, 31, better ren- 
 dered with the Syriac sprinkled. 
 
 •■•• Pollox Onom., i, 4; Kitto, sub. v, purple. 
 
l;30 BAPTISM. 
 
 Now haptidzo is a derivative of hajAo. Wlien was it 
 formed — when first used? We can no more tell than we 
 can as to hapto. Like hapto it was but seldom used. It 
 first appears in a writer of the close of the sixth century 
 before Christ. Immersionists all assert that baptidzo de- 
 rives the primary meaning of hapto, but not the derived 
 meanings (see A. Campbell, pp. 119, 120, Carson, etc., etc.) 
 or figurative meanings of bapto. That will do us very 
 well. But truth, and philology as its aid, we want. Bap- 
 tidzo comes into use in the sixth century before Christ, we 
 know. But bapjto never meant dye nor applied to dyeing 
 by dipping till Plato and Aristotle, so far as records go. 
 It never applied to colored clothes till a hundred years after 
 baptidzo appears in literature. Baptidzo not only antedates 
 dye as a meaning of bapto, but dip, even a partial dip, as 
 a meaning by a century. 
 
 When baptidzo took its departure from bapto, it carried 
 no stain, no dip, no dye with it. All agree that baptidzo 
 never means to stain, color, paint, or dye. Drs. Gale, Car- 
 son, Stuart, A. Campbell, etc., etc. dwell on this marked 
 difference between the two words. Indeed they all make 
 that the only diiference. In that they greatly err, but we 
 have no interest in that here."'' 
 
 Now the facts we have adduced account for the whole 
 ])henomena, so inexplicable to philologists. Had baptidzo 
 been derived — been an extension of bapto — an intensifica- 
 tion or frequentative of it after bapto meant stain, color, 
 dye (Liddell & Scott, A. Campbell, etc.), or put the object 
 into the condition indicated by the root bapto (Kiihner, 
 etc.), then baptidzo would have meant all that bapto does, 
 only perhaps much intensified. All know and agree that 
 this is not the case. 
 
 "••• Dr. J. E. Graves, since the above was written, over and again 
 n(>!e«? the 5UMU' iMft in llie Carrolltoil debate. 
 
BAPTO — PRIMARY MEANING CONTINUED. 13J 
 
 But supposing baptidzo to have been formed long be- 
 fore it appears in the literature that has survived, as we 
 know it did (for it first appears in a highly figurative form 
 in all its earliest occurrences, Pindar, Aristophanes, Plato, 
 Demosthenes pointing to an earlier literal meaning long 
 in use), we can see why it never means color, stain, dye. 
 It was formed as an intensive from bajyto when baj^to had 
 but one meaning — to sprinlde. When we come to exam- 
 ine baptidzo philologically this will appear with over- 
 whelming force. It w^as when bapto meant no more than 
 sprinkle that baptidzo was formed. Let any one examine 
 the passages where bapto occurs throughout all ages, espe- 
 cially for one thousand years from Homer to Clirist, then 
 baptidzo — the difference in use is almost infinite. The one, 
 bapto, constantly occurs in respect to a slight contact, 
 especially the element generally applied is small. It nev- 
 er applies to bapting wdth great billows, waves of stormy 
 seas, wars, and calamities, etc., etc. It even appears in 
 contrast with baptidzo, sometimes both in classics and the 
 Greek fathers. Yet at times both words apply to one and 
 the same kind of operation late in their history, not early. 
 We refer to cases where each equally applies to cutting or 
 piercing with a sword. Both are so used, and we present 
 a number of cases. Baptidzo implies a more copious af- 
 fusion primarily than bapto. Hence we Avill see it much 
 more naturally coming to mean to ivash, as the effect of 
 descending water, then also overflow, overwhelm, and from 
 thence to sink. Hence, really we will find that baptidzo 
 never means to dip at all, but sink, immergo, when it does 
 put the object into or under the element. 
 
 On the contrary, neither A. Campbell, Carson, Gale, 
 nor Stuart ever found an example where bapto meant im- 
 merse. They can't find an example of baptidzo mean- 
 
132 BAPTISM. 
 
 ing to dip in any true sense of the word in classic usage. 
 We named the fact parenthetically that baptidzo first ap- 
 pears in a highly metaphorical form. This will appear 
 when we come to the word. This points to long use when 
 it had its proper literal meaning. Both chronology and 
 philology show clearly that baptidzo was in use before bapto 
 took on the later meanings, dip and dye; the dip being 
 derived from dye, not dye from dip ; the dye from color, 
 stain ; that from moisten, sprinkle. 
 
 Herein we see clearly why 6ap^o at times means to dip 
 simply, but does not apply to immerse, a slight contact with 
 the element being its general later use ; whereas baptidzo 
 being primarily intensified, a stronger form, implying in- 
 tenser force, early passed over into pour, that into wash; 
 also into overflow, overwhelm literally and metaphorically ; 
 thence from overwhelming and overflowing — burdening 
 by such heavy afl'usions — sink was taken on. Plence it can 
 not mean dip — never means dip. A careful examination 
 of the few passages in classics will show this, the strongest 
 case being one in Plutarch, but clearly baptidzo (ek) there 
 does not apply to dipping, but to drinking — becoming in- 
 toxicated out of the wine-jars, etc. If dye is derived from 
 dip, as immerslonists all assume, and baptidzo inherits 
 ^^dip" as the primary meaning of bapto, why did not bap- 
 tidzo mean dye also? If dye comes from dip, why does 
 not dupto, dip, and kolumbao, dip, immerse, mean dye? 
 And if dip and immerse are "synonymous," why do not 
 the Greek verbs buthldzo, katapontidzo, kataduo, which defi- 
 nitely mean to immerse, and Hebrew tabha, immerse, 
 mean to dye, stain, color — have the real meanings of tingo 
 and of dip also?* 
 
 "••• Since the above was written, several years ago, 1870-72, the Graves- 
 Ditzler dehate ocenrrefl. and Dr. G. says, page 322, "As fingo once pri- 
 
BAPTO — PRIMARY MEANING CONTINUED. 133 
 
 In a future chapter the mass of facts will be presented 
 and the science of philology applied, putting all beyond 
 a doubt, and, like the full-orbed sun scattering the mists 
 and shadows of night, the dark night of false philology 
 and assumption will be dissipated before the dawning of a 
 better day. 
 
 IS STAIN, DYE, FROM DIP? 
 
 As Dr. Graves (Debate, 323), since all our facts were 
 written, reiterates the old theory, not giving a word of 
 proof, about dye, color, coming from dip, we now further 
 add, in demonstration of our philological position, the 
 Avords that generally mean to stain, color, dye — meanings 
 all agree to give to the root hapto — and see if color, stain, 
 dye came from dip, as has been universally assumed by 
 immersionists, admitted by too many of their opponents. 
 
 1. Moluno. Stephanus says, quoting another, its "prim- 
 itive meaning is to sprinkle."* Yet Liddell & Scott 
 define it "to stain, sully, defile, to sprinkle." 
 
 Groves : " To dye, stain, discolor, tinge," etc. 
 
 2. Tenggo {rsyyajy Liddell & Scott : " To wet, moisten, to 
 bedew with, esp[ecially] with tears (dakrusi), to wash, to shed 
 tears. Ombros etengeto, a shower fell. (2) To soften (prop- 
 erly by soaking, bathing, etc.). (3) To dye, stain; Latin, 
 tingere.^' "Dye, stain," he puts as derived meanings. 
 
 Groves: Tengo, to moisten, wet, water, sprinkle, be- 
 dew, to soften, soak, steep, relax, to tinge, dye, stain, 
 
 marily meant to dip ; second, to dye, now it has lost its first, and its 
 secondary has become its primary" signification. It is difficult to say 
 what this means, but it shows confusion worse confounded, under only 
 a few of the above facts. On page 323 he reiterates all the old jargon 
 about " dye " from dip, but not a fact, text, or argument offered ! 
 
 *■ Adspergere. 
 
134 BAPTISM. 
 
 color, etc. So Donnegan, Pickering, Dunbar, Pape, Pas- 
 sow, etc. 
 
 3. Palasso. Liddell & Scott: '^To besprinkle, to stain, 
 befoul, defile.'^ The staining, defiling, was from sprinkling 
 blood, etc., etc. 
 
 4. Anthidzo, to sprinkle.* Liddell & Scott : " To strew 
 with flowers, to deck as with flowers, and so to dye or 
 stain with colors. Passive, to bloom, to be dyed or paint- 
 ed, sprinkled with white, browned.'' 
 
 Groves : " To bud, blossom, etc., to strew with flowers, 
 to color, tinge,t dye.'^ 
 
 5. Chraino. Liddell & Scott : ^'To touch slightly. Hence 
 to smear, to paint, to besmear, to anoint, to stain, spot, to 
 defile/' 
 
 Groves: ^'To color, dye, stain, smear, daub, paint," etc. 
 
 6. 3Iialno: "To paint over, to stain, dye, defile, soiP 
 (Liddell & Scott). 
 
 Groves: "To stain, dye, color, to polish, defile," etc. 
 
 7. Chrodzo: "To touch the surface of the body; gener- 
 ally to touch, to impart by touching the surface; hence to 
 tinge, t stain," etc. (Liddell & Scott). 
 
 Groves: "To color, paint, tinge,t dye, stain'," etc. 
 Chrotidzo: "To color, dye, tint" f (Liddell & Scott). 
 
 8. Spilo: "To stain, soil" (Liddell & Scott). 
 Graves: "To spot, stain, blot, defile." 
 
 9. Deuo: "To wet, water, moisten, bedew, sprinkle, to 
 tinge,t dye, color, to soak, soften" (Groves). 
 
 Stephanus: "To wet, moisten, imbue, stain (tingo),t 
 pour, besprinkle, infect, stain, baphaeus.^' 
 
 10. Poluno: "To strew, scatter upon, to besprinkle, 
 
 * Stephanas , . . adspergo. 
 
 t Notice here how often tinr/e, tint, is used ; tmr/o where the processes 
 or modes arc by sprinkle, touch, etc., and not dip. 
 
BAPTO — PEIMAKY MEANING CONTINUED. 135 
 
 snow sprinkled the fields, to sprinkle with flour" (Lid- 
 dell & Scott). 
 
 Here now are ten words, counting chrotidzo as one, not 
 one of which ever had dip as a primary or general mean- 
 ing. Every one accomplished the coloring, staining, ting- 
 ing, dyeing by application of the coloring element. Yet 
 they tell us dyeing, coloring, etc. are eiFected always by 
 dipping. There is now one more Greek word that means 
 to dye, stain, color, tinge as well as to sprinkle, wet, etc. 
 Liddell & Scott, the favorite immersionist lexicon, gives 
 bapto these meanings among others: "To color," "to dye 
 the hair," "to steep in crimson." Groves gives, "Dye," 
 "stain," ^^ color," as well as "dip," "sprinkle, "wet," 
 "moisten." Is it not governed by the same laws of lan- 
 guage? All the other ten words that have the meanings 
 it has have either sprinkle or bedew, the same, "touel 
 slightly," "to touch the surface of the body," "to she 
 tears" as the primary meanings. (1) In all the primar 
 meaning was either sprinkle, shed, as tears, dew, or toucl 
 One was by sprinkling flowers. This forever settles the 
 question about dyeing, coloring, coming from dip. (2) As 
 words meaning dip (dupto), immerse,* never mean to dye, 
 color, it shows bapto never primarily meant to dip. 
 
 It has now been demonstrated — 
 
 1. That bapto primarily applied to sprinkling, to eifii- 
 sion, where liquids were the elements, either blood, or water, 
 or juice, sap, staining, or moistening elements. 
 
 2. That it applied where the slightest possible aspersion 
 occurred, even a few drops — Homer, Hippocrates, Aris- 
 totle, Aristophanes. 
 
 3. That dye, stain, color do not come from, are never 
 meanings of words that properly and generally mean to 
 
 * BiiOti^o)^ Karadvo)^ etc. See them all elsewhere immerse. 
 
136 BAPTISM. 
 
 dip, as cluptOf kolumbao in Greek; tauchen, tunken in Ger- 
 man; dip in English; or from immerse — pontidzo, en, and 
 kataduOy buthidzo, katapontidzo in Greek ; mergo, in,, de, and 
 Huhmergo in Latin. So of Hebrew, Arabic, Persic, Chal- 
 dee, Syriac. In no case does color, stain, dye come from 
 dip or immerse. 
 
 4. But in scores of cases stain, color, paint, dye come 
 from words primarily meaning to sprinkle, and from words 
 primarily meaning to moisten, where it is by sprinkling, 
 dropping upon, etc. Even molunein, stain, primarily 
 meant to sprinkle. The full list of such words will be 
 given under baptidzo. 
 
 5. Immersionists are unanimous in the assertion that 
 immerse and dip can never come to mean to sprinkle or 
 to pour. We agree to this. It is unquestionably true. 
 But Ave see bapto used where dropping, sprinkling, pour- 
 ing, touching with the element occur, as well as falling of 
 dew on the body. So overwhelming is the evidence that 
 Dr. Carson is compelled to admit, and the rest concur, that 
 '^ Use is the sole arbiter of language. Bapto signifies to dye 
 BY SPRINKLING as })roperly as by dipping, though orig- 
 inally it was confined to the latter" (Baptism, 63). The 
 latter remark has been shown to be utterly incorrect from 
 chronological facts as well as from philology. As immer- 
 sionists so pointedly assert that dip can never come to mean 
 to sprinkle — a word properly meaning dip — and yet are 
 compelled to admit bapto does so apply, it shows that 
 sprinkle, and not dip, was the primary meaning of this 
 word. But, 
 
 6. When it is known, as will be exhibited under bap- 
 tidzo, that great numbers of words primarily mean to 
 sprinkle, others to moisten, Avet, where the mode was 
 sprinkling, dropping, yet come to mean derivatively all 
 
BAPTO — PRIMARY MEANING CONTINUED. 137 
 
 that hapto and all that baptidzo are admitted by all par- 
 ties to mean, then it 'becomes as perfectly demonstrated 
 that bapto primarily meant to sprinkle, as that things 
 equal to each other are equal to the same. 
 
 7. That dip is later, rarer, a derived meaning of bapto. 
 
 8. That immerse is unknown as a meaning when " in- 
 spection^' tests the matter, themselves being judges. 
 
 9. That in the Bible it clearly retains sprinkle as one 
 of its meanings still, while it never implies immersion. 
 
 10. That the fathers of the earliest ages — Irenseus, born 
 only a few years before John's death, Origen, and Hippol- 
 ytus, all learned Greeks, translate bapto sprinkle. 
 
 11. That the versions from apostolic times till the six- 
 teenth century render bapto sprinkle as well as by other 
 terms. 
 
 12. Over and again A. Campbell asserts that bapto and 
 baptidzo are the same in meaning. So does Drs. Carson, 
 pp. 19, 18, and 23, and Gale, quoted also by Carson. See 
 Carson also, p. 315. While we do not sanction this, we 
 produce it to show how they regard it. 
 
138 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER XIII. 
 
 Lexicons on Baptidzo. 
 
 We will now cite the most critical, the most popular 
 and authoritative and universally-recognized standards 
 of Greek lexicography known. In the list we give the 
 entire body of native lexicographers who define this word.* 
 Writers on this subject have skipped from bapto to bap- 
 tidzo in lexical citations, and bounded to and fro in classic 
 citations, and Mr. A. Campbell, not to be outdone, doubles 
 down the lexicon into defining ^^ bapto et baptidzo^' as one 
 word, on several occasions, when no lexicon on earth ever 
 made such a stupendous blunder. Booth, and my good 
 friend Dr. G. W. Brents, of Tennessee, string out long 
 lines of theologians small and great, historians read and 
 unread, authorities learned and ignorant, and lexicons 
 good, bad, and doubly indifferent, together with private 
 letters partisanly written, glossaries on single books or 
 authors — all confusedly mixed and jumbled together into 
 a strange, crude, and indigestible mass, heterogeneously 
 mixed up, till confusion is confounded, and, in nine tenths 
 of the cases words and sentences enough left out to defeat 
 all hope of accuracy and analysis. In many cases, also, 
 the real lexicons cited are some Arabic, some Hebrew, 
 
 * Following others, we once quoted Suidas on baptidzo, but he does 
 not define it at all. Hesychius and Suidas give to bapio only its rare 
 meaning, wash, pluno, and are not cited for that reason under bapto. 
 Dr. Graves still keeps up the old blunder of quoting Suidas on baptidzo, 
 all apocryphal. 
 
LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 139 
 
 some Syriac — all quoted as if Greek, and on baptidzo! 
 We have carefully avoided all these absurdities. 
 
 Yet, on account of their early period and great advan- 
 tages, and because they define and translate the word, act- 
 ing from the standpoint of lexicography, we do cite four 
 authorities who never compiled lexicons. But they trans- 
 late the word used by Messiah in the commission to bap- 
 tize, and for that reason we quote them at once. They are 
 the only authors of all antiquity we have found that de- 
 fine the word. Hence they are too valuable to be omitted 
 in this place. 
 
 1. Julianus, fourth century after Christ : ^^Baptidzo 
 means to sprinkle. ^^ * 
 
 Julianus t was one of the most acute and profoundly 
 
 * BaTrri^o) perfunde7'e inter pretat us est. Beza's Annotatioiies Greece 
 Nou. Test, Matt, iii, 11, ed. 1598, folio. Dr. Graves, since the above, 
 Debate, p. 258, tanslates j)ef fund ere " besprinkle." 
 
 It is a painful fact that after all the exposures we have made, had 
 made in the Louisville Debate, and in various papers, of misquotations, 
 suppressions of essential points in lexical citations as well as of authors, 
 and the severe chastisement we gave some authors at Carrollton, Mo., 
 1875, that still partisans and mere controversialists will not agree to be 
 governed by a spirit of fairness. Dr. Graves, e. g. professing to quote 
 forty (40) Greek lexicons (Graves-Ditzler Debate, pp. 322, 529), in the 
 list puts down a number of mere glossaries, mere lexica ; a private letter 
 reported as a lexicon (!); one as Trommius's lexicon, when it is also a 
 glossary, and not made nor published by Trommius; and a long list of 
 authors reported as lexicons whom he never saw, whose works he never 
 consulted, and whose relative merits are never distinguished — all thrown 
 together in a heterogeneous and undigested mass, without analysis, order, 
 or accuracy. And to make bad worse, only one lexicon out of the so- 
 called forty is correctly reported ! ! In every lexicon cited, save one, 
 most essential definitions are suppressed, and essential words left out in 
 all cases save the single exception ! 
 
 Then after the rebuke we gave Dr. Judd and him at Carrollton, 
 which he never resented there (pp. 146-7), Dr. Graves in his last speech 
 — not as delivered, but as rewritten by him after I had returned to Ken- 
 tucky (p. 530) — repeats the shameful untruth, and says, "Ainad in 
 
140 . BAPTISM. 
 
 versed opponents Augustine had, and was in that early- 
 day thoroughly acquainted with these questions. '^ 
 
 2. Augustine, fourth century, next to Jerome the most 
 illustrious of Latin fathers, admits Julianus^s definitions, 
 and seeks to limit or distinguish already between Bible 
 and classic use. 
 
 3. Tertullian, A. d. 190 to 220, renders baptidzo by 
 sprinkle, f 
 
 Syriac, as all standard lexicographers testify, primarily sig- 
 nifies TO immerse"!! a more willful falsehood was never uttered 
 by any perjured, oath-bound member of a robber clan on earth. These, 
 with hosts of other statements in these last speeches on Mode, and all 
 subsequent parts of the so-called debate, account for their not sending 
 to me a single proof-sheet after my sixteenth speech on the First Prop- 
 osition, though I requested it, and gave them my address, (For Castell's 
 definition and " primary " force of the word, see the Debate, p. 147, 
 with the original given.) In the same strain he defies decency on page 
 531, from XIV on to XX. Here he pretends that all these Methodist^ 
 Presbyterian, and eminent pedobaptist scholars, " full one hundred," 
 •embracing Terretinus, Witsius, Beza, Wesley, A. Clarke, Vossius, Light- 
 foot, Stier, Walaus, M. Stuart, as the most noted, held that " immersion 
 was the only act of Apostolic or primitive baptism " ! ! Dr. Graves as 
 well knew that every word of the above was without any foundation or 
 truth as he knew he held his pen in hand, and that every one of the 
 above writers maintained just the reverse. (See them all quoted in this 
 work, as well as in that debate.) 
 
 ^Adversus qiietn eruditissimos libros scripsit Augustinus ; Beza, ibid. 
 
 t Perfudit. Thus : llli quos Menander perfndit, " those whom Men- 
 ander baptized *' — sprinkled. De Anima, c. 51. Irenaeus, a.d. 160, uses 
 "baptized" of them instead of '■'■ perfudit^ 
 
 We have known partisans who tried to evade the force of perfudit, 
 as if it implied a very copious pouring all over the person, which, 
 though it changes not our argument, is not true, as the following use of 
 it shows : 
 
 1. Stokius : 'Vaivti, raino [sprinkle], ^e7/wwc?o, adspergo. 
 
 2. Ed. Leigh, Sacra Critica : 'Taivcj, perfundo, aspergo. 
 
 3. Schleusner, O. T. Lexicon : Tavr/^w, etc., a paho), perfundo, . . . 
 sic usurpaiur de sanguine (Heb. ix, 13, 19, etc.); sprinkle, "from raino, 
 to sprinkle. Thus it is used of the blood, etc. (Heb. ix, 13, 19, etc.). 
 
LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 141 
 
 4. Euththymius, fourth century, besprinkle * [sprinkle]. 
 
 5. Codex Sinaiticus, besprinkle f [sprinkle]. 
 
 6. Codex Vaticanus, besprinkle J [sprinkle]. 
 
 7. Kouma, a native Greek of this century, the lexicon 
 written at great length in modern Greek : " Baptidzo, 
 from hapto, to sink, to put frequently into water; to be- 
 sprinkle, § shed forth (or sprinkle). 2. To draw or pump 
 water. 3. In an ecclesiastical sense, to baptize. '' 1[ 
 
 4. Stephanus, Thesaurus Grcecoe Lin. : 'Vaivu, perfundo, aspergo 
 (p. 8175). 
 
 5, Schrevellius : 'Vaivu, perjundo^ aspergo. Thus all the lexicons 
 define the Greek sprmkle by perfundo, and as equivalent to aspergo. 
 
 Scores of texts in Latin could be cited to the same effect ; the fol- 
 lowing samples suffice: Ovid, in the apostolic age, "She took water, 
 and — perfudit — sprinkled it on his face (Met. iii, 190); "And — perfudii 
 —sprinkled the wide ditches with blood" (Met. vii, 245); Castell uses 
 perfudit caput, perfiidit aqua — sprinkle the head, sprinkle with water, 
 often; as well as Schiiidler, Buxtorf, etc. 
 
 * 'PavTiacjvrai, in Mark vii, 4. Alford's and A. Clarke's Notes on, 
 and the Tischendorff Sinaitic manuscript. 
 
 t 'VavTKJojvTai, in Mark vii, 4. 
 
 X 'PavTiauvrai, in Mark vii, 4. Eight others rendered it sprinkle. 
 
 § In the light of this chapter, how does the language of A. Campbell 
 and others appear, when they so boldy asserted that " It never has been 
 translated by either sprinkle or pour by any lexicographer for eighteen 
 hundred years." 
 
 Dr J. R. Graves, followed by swarms of others, says, in The Baptist, 
 Nov. 6, 1875, "Not one of them [thirty-two Greek lexicographers 
 claimed] defines it [baptidzo'] to pour or to sprinkle." He modified it 
 thus in his unspokeii, written speech, where he knew I would not see it 
 till in the published book, too late to be exposed in the work (p. 526). 
 In capitals he says, "No standard lexicon in the world gives 'to 
 sprinkle,' or 'to pour ' as a literal and real signification of baptidzo.'' If 
 Baptists are edified by such reckless dealing we ought to be satisfied. 
 He then pretends to call on me "to produce one Greek lexicon of ac- 
 knowledged authority, or an authoritative quotation from one, that gives 
 'to sprinkle' or 'to pour' as a primaky meaning of baptidzo.'' He 
 HAS NOT DONE IT." Capitals his own in this line. He well knew he 
 never said that in the debate. Such hypocrisy is contemptible. 
 
 ^ Kouma : 'EairTiC.u M. lgu ek tov jSoltttu ; f3vd!^cj^ fSovrcj av^vaKig e'lg 
 ipyov, Karafipexi'}, ^p^x^- 2. 'Avr/lu. 3. BaTrr/'Cw . . . eKic/jjc. S. 
 
142 BAPTISM. 
 
 8. Sophocles, restricted to the Iron Age or later Greek, 
 is an immersion ist, and a favorite with them. "BaptidzOj 
 to dip, to immerse ; sink, to be drowned [as the effect of 
 sinking] ; to sink. Trop., to afflict; soaked in liquor; to 
 be drunk, intoxicated. 2. Mid., to perform ablution ; 
 to bathe ; bathed [baptized] in tears ; to plunge a knife. 
 4. [Ecclesiastical in Dark Ages] : Baptizo, mergo, mergito, 
 tlngo (or tinguo), to baptize ; New Testament, passim. '' * 
 Baptism with tears is hardly a clear case of dipping or im- 
 mersing. 
 
 9. Schsetgennius. ^^Baptidzo: First, properly (i. e. in 
 classics) to plunge, sink in (immerse) ; second, to wash, 
 to cleanse (Mark vii, 4 ; Luke xi, 38) ; third, to baptize, in 
 a sacred sense. Metaphorically it means, first, to pour 
 forth abundantly (Matt, iii, 11; Acts i, 5, etc.); second, 
 to be subjected to great dangers and burdens '' f (c'lassic ref- 
 erence to Diodorus Siculus, etc., as well as one to Matthew 
 XX, 22, of Christ's sufferings). 
 
 10. Wahl. He has two editions. In the first the New 
 Testament meanings are given thus : " First, to wash (clas- 
 sic, to sink down, submerse); second, to immerse; third, 
 metaphorically, overwhelm any thing with any thing; 
 to imbue plentifully, as with the divine Spirit,'' etc. 
 
 In his second later edition it reads, Wahl, baptidzo 
 (1831)— 
 
 * Where it is "baptized" in tears, he cites the Greek thus, BaTTri^eadat 
 Toiq daKpvGL^ which is, " baptized with tears." The word occurs in Euse- 
 bius's Greek History, where John the Apostle "baptized" a penitent 
 who had backslidden "as if a second time with his tears," as well as in 
 other writers. 
 
 tBaTTTt'Cw — 1. Proprie mergo, immergo ; 2. Ahluo, lavo (Marc, vii, 4; 
 Luke xi, 35) ; 3. Baptizo, signifl.catu sacro, tnetaphorice accipitur et sig- 
 nificat. 1. Largitur prof undo (Matt, iii, 11; Acts i, 5) ; 2. Muliis peric- 
 litis et oneribus subjiceo (Matt, xx, 22); eadem sensu apiuL profanes 
 orcurrere. etc. 
 
LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 143 
 
 I. "To immerse (Joseplius, Ant., ix, 10, 2 ; Polyb. i, 51, 
 6, classic use), (a) properly, also, of the sacred immersion, 
 then by immersion ; (6) with the idea of overwhelming 
 included; to sprinkle,* followed with the dative of the 
 instrument, etc., with water. Metaphorically, for to im- 
 bue largely ; (c) to plunge in or overwhelm with calamities. 
 2. "For nipto, wash, i. e. Mark vii, 3.'^ Later he erases 
 sprinkle. 
 
 II. Grimshaw. Baptidzo : To wash, dip, besprinkle. f 
 
 12. Ewing, 1827, Glasgow. ^'Baptidzo: I plunge or 
 sink completely under water, I cover partially with water, 
 I wet; third, I overwhelm or cover with water by rush- 
 ing, flowing, or pouring upon . . .; fourth, I drench or 
 impregnate with liquor by affusion; I pour abundantly 
 upon, so as to wet thoroughly; I infuse . . .; I wash.'';!; 
 
 13. Ed. Robinson's Lexicon of the New Testament 
 (classic use he gives first, as), to dip in, to sink, to im- 
 merse; in Greek writers, spoken of ships, galleys, etc. 
 Polyb. i, 51; Diod. Sic, Strabo, Plut. ... In the New 
 Testament, first, to wash, to lave, to cleanse by washing; 
 second, to wash oneself, i. e. one's hands or person, to 
 perform ablution ; § third, to baptize, etc. He then adds 
 in a note to the word: 
 
 '^'Per/undo, sq. dat , etc. . . . pro vittto), lavo. In first edition, in 
 brackets, he has demerge, submergo (Polyb. i, 51-6; Diod. Sic, etc.). 
 
 t This is the only lexicon we have accepted from other than the 
 original on the lexicons on baptidzo. 
 
 X This wild definition, so labored and strange, is the only one given 
 that really gives a meaning that exactly suits immersionists — "sink 
 completely tinder water." "Water no more inheres in baptidzo than oil, 
 honey, mud, or filth, as Conant, Carson, A. Campbell, etc., show. 
 
 §Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 281) cites him thus: "To immerse, to 
 sink ; 2. To wash, to cleanse by washing," etc., and leaves out the note. 
 He carefully leaves out also the words ''In New Test." preceding the 
 words " to wash, to lave, cleanse," etc., after asserting that no standard 
 lexicon makes a difference between classic and Xew Testament usel 
 
144 BAPTISM. 
 
 ["Note. — "While in Greek writers, as above exhibited, from Plato 
 onward, (^aTrrll^cj is every where to sink, to immerse, to overwhelm, either 
 wholly or partially, yet in Hellenistic usage ... it would seem to have 
 expressed, not always simply immersion, but the more general idea of 
 ablution or aifusion." Ed. 1854.] 
 
 14. Stokius. We next take up this author, old school 
 of philology, and for years paraded by immersionists as 
 having no superior!* 
 
 ^^ Baptidzo: To wash, to baptize; passive, to be washed, 
 to be cleansed." t He then gives the current classic use 
 and the old-time philology in his usual note to a word of 
 any extended use in the New Testament, thus: "Gener- 
 ally, and by the force of the word, it obtains the sense of 
 dipping or immersing.]: Specially (a) properly it is to 
 immerse or dip in water; (a) tropically (1) by a metalepsis, 
 it is to wash (Javare) or cleanse {abluere), because any thing 
 is accustomed to be dipped or immersed in water that it 
 may be washed or cleansed, althouc/h also the tcashing or 
 cleansing can be, and generally is, accomplished by 
 SPRINKLING THE AVATER (Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38). 
 
 *■ That you may see how much importance is attached to the opinion 
 of Stokius, I will read you from A. Campbell's works : " Has he pro- 
 duced a lexicon, of the eighteen centuries past, giving sprinkle ov pour 
 as the j)roper or as the figurative meaning of baptidzo ? . . Let him 
 produce any modern dictionary, English, French, Spanish, German, etc., 
 thus expounding the Greek words hopto or baptidzo^' (Debate, p. 181). 
 
 Of Stokius: "This great master of sacred literature" (Debate, 
 p. CO); "One of the most learned rabbis in the school and learning of 
 orthodoxy" (Debate, p. 206); •' The two still more venerable names of 
 Schleusner and Stokius " (Debate, p. 208). '• Schleusner, a man revered 
 by orthodox theologians, and of enviable fame" (Debate, p 58). 
 
 A. C. (Debate, p. 208) declares Stokius and Schleusner " are still 
 more decidedly with us [them] . . . than any one or all of the classic 
 dictionaries." 
 
 t BaTTTi^w, lavo, baptizo, passivum j3a7rTi(^o/xat, luor, lavor. Lavo is to 
 wash, wet, bedew, besprinkle, by all lexicons. 
 
 X It might equally well be dipping and immerse, but I prefer to fol- 
 low immersion translations, unless they grossly depart from the original. 
 
LEXirOXB ox EAPTIDZO. 145 
 
 Hence it is transferred to the sacrament of baptism. . . . 
 3. Metaphorically it designates (a) the miraculous pour- 
 ing out (effusionem) of the Holy Spirit upon the apostles 
 and other believers, as well on account of the abundance 
 of the gifts of the Holy Spirit, since anciently the water 
 was copiously poured upon those baptized, or they were 
 immersed deep in the water,'^ etc.* 
 
 Here Stokius adopts the old theory held by Suicer, 
 Vossius, Beza, Terretinus, etc., that baptidzo came to mean 
 to wash derivatively, then to wash by sprinkling. And 
 he cites two New Testament texts where it refers to Jew- 
 ish baptisms thus effected, for in both it is baptidzo (Mark 
 vii, 4; Luke xi, 38). Then as Jewish baptism {lotio, abla- 
 tio -baptidzo^ and baptismos) was effected generally '^by 
 sprinkling the water,'^ ''hence it is transferred to desig- 
 nate the sacrament of baptism.'' Then he tells us meta- 
 phorically it designated the pouring out of the Spirit. 
 Why so? He tells us, ^^ Since anciently the water was 
 copiously poured upon those baptized," etc. f Because 
 
 ^BaTTTi^o), lavo, baptizo, ^oassivuyn, luor, lavor. Then he adds a note: 
 
 1. Generatiyn ac vi vocis inthictionis ac innnersionis notiojiem ohtincf. 
 
 2. Speciatim, (a) proprie est immergei^e ac intingere in aquam; (b) tropice, 
 (1) per metalipsin est, lavare, abluere, quia aliqtdd iniingi ac immergi 
 solet in aquam ut lavetur, vel abluatur quamquain et adspergendo 
 aquam, lotio vel ablutio fieri queat et soleat (Mark vii, 4: Luke xi, 38). 
 Hlnc transferetur ad baptlsmi sacr amentum, etc. . . . Per Met. designat 
 (a) miracidosam spiritus S. [sancti'] effusionem super apostolos, aliosque 
 credentes, turn ob donoriim spiritus S., copiam, prout oltm aqua bapii- 
 zandis copiose AFFUNDEBatur, vel illi penitus in aquam immergebau- 
 tur, etc. 
 
 tDr. Graves (Debate p. 354) says, "Stokius says tliat properly it 
 means only ' to immerse,' ' to dip into,' " etc. Where is the " 07ily " / 
 He cites the Latin from my lexicon, which he borrowed, as he borrowed 
 Leigh, Castell, etc., at Carrollton; but there is no "only," nay he luis 
 him translated, but no "ow^y." He admits he says it "was by sprin- 
 kling," as above, but that was merely Stokius's " opinion." All he said 
 was simply " opinion; " all as to "immerse'' or "dip in water," to wash, 
 
 10 
 
\\C) BAPTTftM. 
 
 the water was thus poured on those baptized in the apos- 
 tolic age they metaphorically applied the word to the 
 Spirit's influence, etc. How plain and simple.^^ 
 
 15. H. Cremer, second edition, 1878. Tiiis is a " Bib- 
 lio-Theological Lexicon of the New Testament Greek/' 
 from the second German edition, by W. Urwick. ^' Bap- 
 t'idzo : To immerse, to submerge ; often in later Greek, Plut., 
 etc/^ After ^^ immerse and submerse,^' as " later ^' classic 
 meanings, he urges that rachats [wash], louo [wash], and 
 niptesthai [wash the hands] (Matt, xv, 2), for which Mark 
 vii, 4, has baptidzesthai are all one. Then he says, " Ex- 
 pressions like Isaiah i, 16 ['Svash you ''], and prophesies like 
 Ezekiel xxxi, 25 ['Hhen will I sprinkle clean water upon 
 you''], xxxvii, 23 [^^ cleanse them"] tf., Zechariah xiii, 1, 
 are connected with the Levitical washings, etc. . . This is 
 the reason also why baptidzein in itself was not a thing 
 unknown to the Jews." On Luke iii, IG, John i, 33, and 
 Matthew iii, 11, he urges that " it makes no material differ- 
 ence whether en [in, with] be taken locally [i. e. in water] 
 or instrumentally [en hudatiy with water]. It is the for- 
 mer, if in baptidzein, with the meaning to dip, we main- 
 
 and a very erroneous opinion at that, against all facts and the science 
 of language. But that is Stoku^s. 
 
 ■•■•■To ward off Stokius's testimony, the immersionists quote him on 
 hapiihina, where S. abrid(^es his language, and refers to baptism, "in 
 which those to be baptized were formerly immersed into water; though 
 at this time the water is only sprinkled upon them," etc. I copy Dr. 
 Graves's own version of it (Debate, p. 35S). iS'ow of this — 1. Stokiua 
 is not defining haptidzo, but hapiisma, a word not used once in all the 
 gospels for Christian baptism. 2. No Scripture text, 7iot one, is cited by 
 Stokius. He cites a host where the sprinkle water — and pour apply — 
 after his hinc — hence, because the water was sprinkled, etc. — hence 
 transferred to the sacrament of baptism. 3. He is talking of its use by 
 the fathers after the apostolic age. Hence his word, " They call it [the 
 sacrament] of initiation " — " first sacrament." Where is it so called in 
 the New Testament. 
 
LEXICOXS OX BAPTTDZO. 147 
 
 tain the idea of immersion ; it is the latter [with] if we 
 maintain the idea of a washing or a pouring over/' He 
 had said already, ^' That the meaning ' to wash in order 
 to purification from sin/ is metaphorical, and not that 
 of "immerse/ is clear from the contraposition of en 
 hudati and en pneumatl [baptize with water — with the 
 Spirit], by which the two baptisms are distinguished from 
 each other. Both in the case of John and of the Messiah 
 the question was one of purification from sin, which the 
 former effected by means of water, the latter by means of 
 the Holy Spirit and fire. Cf. [compare] Ezekiel xxxvi, 25- 
 27 ; Malachi iii, 2, 3 ; Isaiah vi, 6, 7.'' Then follows the 
 above extract beginning " It makes no material differ- 
 ence,'' etc. Cremer, like Havernick, Ebrard, and hosts of 
 others, holds Ezekiel xxxvi, 25, "sprinkles," to be bap- 
 tism. That baptism is not immersion. 
 
 As my exposures of immersion quotations of these 
 authors stung them into madness, they have resorted to 
 the most astounding dodges and bold and most reckless 
 accusations in order to draw off attention from their bad 
 use of these authors. Hence we give the full text both in 
 the original and the translation, with the exposure of their 
 reckless criticisms and assertions appended, that all may 
 see the simple desperation of their leaders in the West. 
 
 16. Schleusner. Baptidzo : Properly,^ I immerse or 
 
 * Ba7rr/^w, 1. Proprie, immergo, ac iniingo in aquam mergo, a /^oTrrw, 
 et resjiondet, Hebrew "5*^ [tahhal] — 2 Keg. v, 14; in vers. Alex, et ^'s-^ 
 [tabha\ apucl symmachum (Ps. Ixviii, 5) ; et apucl incertum (Ps. ix, 6). hi 
 hac significaiione nunquam in N. T. sed eo Jrequeniius in Script. Greek 
 legitur^ v. c. (Died. Sic. i, chap. 36), de Nilo exwndenie [text of land 
 animals submersed, etc.] — Strabo, Polyb., etc. . . . Jom, quia hand raro 
 aliquid immergi ac intingi in aquam solet, tit lavetur hinc. 2. Ahluo, 
 lavo, aqua purgo notat. Sic legitur in N. T. (Marc, vii, 4), Kal airb 
 ayopaq eav //?) (iaTrTiouvraL (in quibusdam codd., pavriatJVTai), qIk kudiovGi 
 [Latin rendering — et res sj-.]— Luc. xi, 38 [texts in his Latin — aqua 
 
148 BAPTISM. 
 
 clip, I plunge into [or in] water, from hapto, and answers to 
 the Hebrew tabhal [i. e. translates tabhat], 2 Kings v, 14, 
 in the Alexandrian version [LXX], and to tabha, in Sym- 
 machus, Psalm Ixviii, 3 [really], and in an unknown [un- 
 certain as to its translator] Psalm ix, 6. But in this 
 sense it never occurs in the New Testament, but very fre- 
 quently in Greek [classic] writers; for example, Diodorus 
 Siculus, Strabo, etc., of the overflowing of the Nile, etc., 
 Polybius, etc 
 
 ^' Now, because not unfrequently [rarely] a thing is im- 
 mersed or dipped in water that it may be washed ; hence, 
 second [it means], to cleanse, to wash, to purify with 
 water. Thus it occurs in the New Testament.* Mark 
 vii, 4 [translated by him], Luke xi, 38 [copied likewise 
 and translated in Latin]. [He notes that in some texts — 
 codices — it reads sprinkle {rantlsontai) instead of ^^ bap- 
 tize themselves "]. Baptidzesthal not only means to wash, 
 but to wash oneself, etc. Eccles. xxxiv, 30; Judith 
 xii, 8. Hence transferred to the solemn rite of baptism. 
 [Detailed comments follow.] Fourth, metaphorically, as 
 the Latin, to imbue, to give to largely and copiously, and 
 to administer, to pour forth abundantly (Matt, iii, 11), 
 etc". 
 
 Here this great lexicographer gives immerse, dip, 
 
 ohlutce et purgaioe juerint — se non lavasse]. BaTr, non solum lavari, sed 
 etiam se lavare significare multis locis probare potest (Sirac. xxxiv, 30) 
 [text.] ; Judith xii, 8 [text]. 3. Hinc transferetur ad hap)tismi ritum 
 solemnem, etc. [Detailed comment and texts— not on mode, follow.] 4. 
 Metaphorice : lit Lat. imbuo, large et copiose do aique suppedito, largiter 
 profmido (Matt, iii, 11). 
 
 * After all this pains by Stokius, and more still, if possible, by 
 Schleusner, to distinguish between the classic and Isew Testament use 
 of baptidzo, Dr. Graves (Debate, 527) says, "It is not true that any 
 standard lexicon distinguishes between classic Greek and New Testa- 
 ment Greek in giving definitions of baptidzo" ! ! Was ever mortal so 
 reckless who believed in a God? 
 
LEXICONS OX BAPTIDZO. 149 
 
 plunge, in which sense it often occurs in classic Greek, as 
 he holds, and in the sense of shik it does often so occur, 
 and of overflow, overwhelm; but he adds, "In this sense 
 it never occurs in the New Testament/^ In what sense, 
 then, does it occur in the New Testament? In the sense 
 of " cleanse, wash, purify with w^ater/^ In certain ancient 
 codices it reads sprinkle for baptize. In what other sense 
 does it occur in the New Testament? Among others, "to 
 pour forth abundantly/^ * 
 
 ••■•• As might be expected, garbling the text, suppression, and the bold- 
 est dealing have distinguished some of the western immersionists on this 
 author. It has been assumed that " in this sense it does not occur in 
 the New Testament," means in the sense of tahha, as distinguished from 
 iabhal [! !], but by no scholar. We translated it as it is. Our views are 
 supported — 
 
 1. By the very language itself. Schleusner says expressly of these 
 meanings — cleanse, wash, purify, ^'Thus it occui^s in the New Testmneniy 
 He cited the well-known passages Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38, which were 
 Jewish baptisms, and renders them "wash." 
 
 Then he cites the fact that in certain ancient manuscripts of the 
 Bible it read, instead of baptize themselves, sprinkle [ rcmtisdniai ] 
 themselves. Nine of them thus read. The two oldest copies of the 
 Bible known in the world read " sprinkle " for " baptize." He cites 
 Judith xii, 7, where she baptized — trrl rijg injyf/^ rov vdarog — at the fount- 
 ain of water, washed; and Ecclesiasticus, "He that — [io/j^irfzo] bap- 
 tizeth — washeth himself from a dead body," etc., and he translates them 
 all ^^ washy Then he tells us— since he showed it applied among the 
 Jews to washing, and so many ancient copies had it sprinkle, that hence 
 the word is transferred [i. e. from this Jewish use for ages by the Jews] 
 to the solemn rite of baptism. 
 
 2. It is perfectly evident further from the fact that he defines its 
 New Testament use to be "i7nbuo/^ largiiur prqfundo — "to imbue, to 
 pour forth abvnidantly." These are not meanings of iabhal or tabha in 
 any case. 
 
 3. The words "iw hac sif/nificatione" can not refer to tabha, "but 
 in this sense" of tabha as distinguished from tahhal, for the punctu- 
 ation unites them, and the et — et — "to tabhal and to tabha.'' To evade 
 this, Dr. Graves absolutely suppresses the et — throws it out in trans- 
 lating it (Debate, p. 347). Nor again, because of the absurdity im- 
 plied; for tabhal occurs with blood the first time it appears in the 
 
150 BAPTISM. 
 
 It may be that we do not know how to sympathize with 
 our good immersionist friends, but they must bear these 
 exposures. 
 
 world (Gen. xxxvii, 31, and Ex. xii, 22 ; and in other passages in Levit- 
 icus) ; with oil also. Dr. Graves, and others whom he follows, makes 
 Schleusner say hapticlzo does not occur in the sense of tabhal in the two 
 verses given ; but it does occur in the sense of tabhal (2 Kings v, 14) — 
 " dipped himself." But is that its New Testament sense ? Do they dip 
 themselves in the New Testament. If it is used only for " dip himself," 
 and only in the sense of iahlial, whence comes S.'s " wash, cleanse, purify, 
 pour forth abundantly"? Tabhal in Bible use never means wash, 
 cleanse, purify. It occurs in connection with blood, oil, etc. oftener 
 than any thing else, as Dr. Graves's own citations show (Debate, pp. 
 487, 489). 
 
 4. Dr. Graves, in his blundering way (Debate, p. 348) says, "And 
 that it also corresponds to tava [tahha'] in Psalm Ixviii, 5, ' Thou hast 
 overichelmed (i. e. destroyed by an overwhelming) cities,' and in an un- 
 known writer, a gloss; or (Ps. ix, 6) 'Their memorial is j^^rished' (by an 
 overwhelming that covers it out of sight). But in this sense it is never 
 used in the New Testament. In what sense? Unquestionably the lat- 
 ter, as tava is used i7i these two 2^assages. In the sense, then, of to de- 
 stroy by immersing it is never used in the New Testament." Again 
 (Debate, p. 412) he says the same, in brief, thus : " Undoubtedly [it 
 refers] to the hist, tava, ivhich is used in the two Psalms referred to, in 
 the sense of to destroy by overflowing; and Schleusner declares that i7i 
 this sense, i. e. to drown, to perish by the submersion, it is never used 
 in the New Testament." He tells us of Baptist doctors sustaining 
 this ! ! 
 
 Does it not occur to their minds that this absurd theory destroys 
 their position on several other points? — e. g. where Dr. G. insists that no 
 standard lexicon distinguishes between classic and New Testament use 
 (Debate, p. 527). 
 
 Also, that Dr. G. himself cites classic cases where baptidzo destroys by 
 drowning, and that Conant points out many such places? But let us 
 examine him in detail to see how reliable are Baptist criticisms here. 
 
 Dr. Graves and his backers make tabha {tava) apply to overwhelm- 
 ings. It never so applies in any passage in the Bible, and no lexicon 
 that ever was made translates it "overwhelm" or " overflow," or by any 
 like word. But let us read the two passages cited by Schleusner (Ps. 
 ix, 6 — in the Hebrew, ix, IC ; in James, ix, 15). " The heathen are sunk 
 — tabha — down in the pit that they made." Now where is the over- 
 whelm of Dr. G.? Where does the "overwhelming," "cover" them 
 
LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 151 
 
 17. Steplianus, 1572. BapUdzo: I plunge or immerse, 
 
 as we immerse things in water for the purpose of wetting 
 
 [wasliiug?] or cleansing them; plunged, i.e. I submerse, 
 
 " out of sight " ? It is such an " overwhelming " us results in causing 
 the subject to parish, says Dr. G. Not a word of it. Not one perishes 
 here by tabkcu It shows they sunk down in the pit, were taken in their 
 own net; not one is overwhelmed, not one pj?rishes. Take the other 
 passage (Ps. Ixix, 3— misprinted 5 in S.) ; in James it is Psalms Ixix, 2, 
 *1 sink — tahha — in deep mire." Where is the "overwhelm" or "de- 
 stroy " there? Not a word of it. Where he names waters and overflow 
 he changes both the verb and noun, the manner of getting into the ele- 
 ment and the element. Mire is not wafer. Dr. G. most shamefully 
 slips out, quotes not a word of the real and expressed elements into 
 which the tabha sinks them, leaves them out, and runs to other figures, 
 other words, and slips them in the place of the suppressed words ! 
 
 But after we exposed (Debate, p. 256) his blunders, and we had left 
 Memphis for Kentuck^^, he then writes (Debate pp. 484-5) that tahha in 
 Psalms ix, 15 (English version), the Hebrew word translated baptidzo, 
 is from a word that means "to settle down, as Proverbs ii, 18: 'Her 
 house sinks down — shubat — into death \el m.aveth'].'' In this sense the 
 great Schleusner wishes to say, and does say in his lexicon, that baptidzo 
 is never used in the New Testament." Here is a change and going 
 back on his former dodge completely. Where is now " overwhelm " ? 
 Where are the floods? To sink down, to settle down into a thing, is 
 not for the thing to come, as a flood overwhelming it. But we will not 
 allow this shameful deception. It is " mire " in one place, a " pit " in 
 the other into w^hich tahha sinks them. 
 
 His repeated blunders, adding more still (Debate, p. 484), we need 
 not consume time with, where he writes as if it were in the LXX, this 
 tahha was rendered baptidzo, instead of Symmachus and the unknown 
 version . 
 
 5. Finally, as tabha ahuays means immerse — nothing in all the 
 Bible but immerse — and is so defined by every and all Hebrew lexicons 
 we ever saw, and yet Dr. Graves says baptidzo is not used, does not 
 occur in the New Testament in the sense of tahha, in the places where it 
 does mean immerse, it is destructive of their own position. He makes 
 Schleusner say directly, "In the sense of immerse baptidzo kever occurs 
 in the New Testament." So I believe with all my heart. 
 
 The foct that S. refers to overflowing of the Nile as the very ex- 
 ample he cites to show bajitidzd's classic use, demonstrates that he could 
 not mean to say that tahha was used in that sense, as it never is so used. 
 In the rewritten debate (p. 412) he says, backed, he urge?, by sever; J 
 
152 BAPTISM. 
 
 I overwhelm with water; overwhelmed. \\BaptidzOj to 
 cleanse, to wash (Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38")."^ 
 
 18. Gazes. '^Baptidzo: To put frequently any thing into 
 any thing, and thence upon it; to shed forth any thing; 
 to water; to pour upon; to wash. 2. To draw or pump 
 water; to put a vessel into a place of water that I may 
 pour out. 3. To wash the hands or to wash oneself. 
 
 Baptist doctors, that " hac " refers to iavha ! " Undoubtedly to the last 
 iava which is used in the two Psalms referred to in the sense of TO de- 
 stroy BY the overflowing " / Is it not amazing that sectarianism can go 
 so far? In neither case was the party destroyed that was tavhced. One 
 was tahhced — " sank " in " deep mire." Was that to " overflow " him ? 
 In the other he sank in a pit. 
 
 * BaTTTii^cj mergo S. immergo id quce tijigendi aid ahluendi gratia aquae 
 itnmergimus. Plut. (6, G33) Sic. Alex. Aphr., ^ro immersus. He then 
 says Buddseiis interj^rets or renders it " intinctus also," " etiam intinctus,'^ 
 but he does not sanction that. Strabo uses it for " mergo, s^ihnergo," 
 etc.; of others later. || "Ba-W;w, abluo, lavo (Marc, vii, 4)," etc. 
 
 Mr. A. Campbell, Drs. Graves and Booth all render the Latin of 
 Stephanas and Scapula thus : Mergo, seu immergo, ut qtice iigendi, aut 
 ahluendi gratia aquae immergimus. Mergo, i. e. submergo, abruo, aquos. 
 " To immerse or immergo, as things which we immerse for the sake of 
 dyeing or washing in water" (Graves, Debate, p. 281). 
 
 Dr G., p. 282, has Scapula saying under haptidzo "-item tingo." It 
 is a false reading, copied from an error of Dr. Rice in debate with A. C. 
 Dr. G. renders Scapula " to immerse or immerge." "Also to immerse, 
 as we immerse things for the sake of dyeing or washing them in water ! " 
 No dip. But after we exposed his blunders he at least after that slips 
 in dip for " immergo'' repeatedly ! He leaves out their New Testament 
 "abluo, lavo." 
 
 We append the definitions of these lexicons, all copied from the 
 originals directly. 
 
 1. Scapula, 1579, ed. 1820, Londoni: "Baptidzo, mergo, sen imyyiergo, 
 id quce tingendi, aid ahluendi gratia aquoi im.mergimus. Plut., etc. Item, 
 tnergo, submergo, abruo aqua. Item, ahliio, lavo (Marc, vii [4] ; Luc. 
 xi [38]. 
 
 2. Hedericus, ed. 1825: ^^ Baj)tidzo,rnergo,imviergo, aqua ahruo ; (2) 
 ahluo, lavo; (3) baptizo, significato, sacro." The first classic cited for 
 " immerse " is Helidorus, a late author ; second one is Plutarch — long 
 after Christ. 
 
LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 153 
 
 4. Among Christians, to baptize."* Here *^shed forth" 
 {hrecho) pour upon [cheo to, pour, epi upon], etc. are given 
 by this great author, a native Greek. 
 
 3. Schrevellius, ed. 1814: '• Baptidzo, nierf/o, abluo, lavo ; Angl. hop- 
 tize.'" 
 
 4. Pasor, xvi, 44: "Bajytidzo, immergo, abhio, baptizo (Matt, iii, 11)," 
 etc. He shows it applies to sufferings in New Testament also. 
 
 Here we have these few old abridgments of Stephanus and Morell 
 showing that Baptidzo — 
 
 1. Xever meant dip any where. 
 
 2. Never meant immerse till in late Greek. 
 
 3. Never meant immerse in the New Testament any where where 
 the rite occurs. 
 
 4 Had only the force of cleanse, wash, baptize, without regard to 
 mode in the New Testament. 
 
 "* Gazes was a native of Melias, Thessaly. He was educated at Yen- 
 ice, traveled over Europe ; was one of the most learned of Greeks ; was 
 a member of the committee that framed and signed the Declaration of 
 Grecian Independence. He put forth his lexicon, founded on Schnei- 
 der's, with changes and improvements, at Venice, three volumes quarto, 
 which the learned Hilarion followed, who, with the approval of his 
 archbishop, revised the translation of the Bible by the British and For- 
 eign Bible Society. Here is his definition in full: Bairrli^cj: M. go [(Sa-n- 
 Tcj). I^v;(va (3ovT0) ti fieoa elg tl Kal hrevdev ava tov. Bpe^O) ri, wotiI^o, 
 £7r/.^YW«j, Xoiio). 2. 'AvrTiO) fiovro) elg to vcpov ayyeiov ri 6ia va £«;6d/lA(j. 3. 
 IIai'I'w rag x^lpag, rj "kovofiaL. 4. BaTrr/^w, Tzapa Xpiariavolg, etc. 
 
 Dr. T. J. Conant, with Gazes and Kouma before him, suppresses all 
 their definitions that were in serious debate, thus, as published by Elder 
 "Wilkes in Louisville (Debate, pp. 478-9). 
 
 November 18, 1870. 
 To Wm. H. WYECiiorr, LL.D., Cor. Sec'y of Am. Bible Union : 
 
 My Dear Sir — Your friend asks, "What is the definition of /?a7rr/(^w 
 and of l3a7TTta/xa, as given by each of the following lexicographers, viz, 
 Hesychius, of the fourth century; Suidas, of the tenth ; Zonaras, of the 
 tentli or twelfth ; and Gaze of the seventeenth ? 
 
 Suidas has only baptidzo. He gives no definition of the word, and 
 only says it is used with the accusative case. Gaze defines it, ' to dip 
 repeatedly ' ; hence, for, to drench, to wash, to bathe." 
 
 Yery truly yours, ^ j^ Cokant. 
 
 How can a man act thus? Yet Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 528), aft* r I 
 had expo-ed Dr. Conant, suppresses all the above facts, by pretending 
 
151 BAPTISM. 
 
 19. Parkhurst.^ ^^Baptidzo: To dip, immerse, or plunge 
 ill water," etc. He supports immersion, then says, "3. 
 To baptize, to immerse in, or wash with, water in token 
 of purification from sin," etc. Then, "V. In a figurative 
 sense, ' to baptize with the Holy Ghost.' It denotes the 
 miraculous effusion [pouring out] of the Holy Ghost upon 
 the apostles and other believers, as well on account of the 
 abundance of his gifts (for anciently the Avater was co- 
 piously poured on those who were baptized, or they them- 
 selves were plunged therein)", etc.f 
 
 20. Walseus: "Indifferently, sprinkling or immer- 
 sion.":!: 
 
 21. Vossius gives immerse, etc., then, "III. To sprin- 
 kle."§ 
 
 22. Arst gives as a proper New Testament meaning, 
 " sprinkling" {perjusioneiii). 
 
 Vossuis above cites Matthew iii, 11, as a place where 
 
 the baptism was by sprinkling. Alas, when immersion 
 
 requires such a defense ! ^[ 
 
 that such meanings as "shed forth," "besprinkle,"' "pour upon" are 
 '* figurative and secondary meanings " ! 
 
 * We would not quote so ordinary a lexicon as this, but that immer- 
 sionists quote him so often, and, like Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 281), sup- 
 press the very point in issue. He leaves out all that we cite above. 
 
 t Dr. Graves, A. Campbell, etc., alv/ays cited Parkhurst as support- 
 ing the Baptist view. 
 
 X Aspersione ayi immersione (Leigh's Crit. Sacra). 
 
 ^Adspergere (Leigh's Crit. Sacra). 
 
 ^ I went to the pains and expense to send to New York and Cam- 
 bridge both, and secured exact copies of these two great lexicons, as 
 they had been so incorrectly quoted on all sides. Dr. Conant professed 
 to give the definitions of these authors, and suppressed all the very 
 definitions in controversy ! Dr. Graves tries to excuse himself for doing 
 the same by shamelessly calling them figurative meanings ! When can 
 we settle a question if authors act thus ? 
 
 In Carrollton debate, 1875, rev:ritten by Dr. Graves in April and 
 
LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 155 
 
 23. Liddell & Scott (classic), ed. 1850. ''Baptidzo: To 
 dip repeatedly, dip under; middle [voice] to bathe. Plence 
 to steep, Avet. Metaphor[ically],^ soaked in wine; to 
 pour upon, drench, over head and ears in debt, over- 
 whelmed with questions. II. To dip a vessel to draw 
 w^ater. III. To baptize (New Testament) .^^ 
 
 This Avork being professedly a translation of the great 
 w'ork of Passow, though much abridged really, was pre- 
 pared especially, like Donnegan, Pickering, and Dunbar, 
 for popular school use. But the Baptists raised such a 
 roar of disgust over the words '' poured upon,'^ that the 
 publishers to appease their fury erased them in subse- 
 quent editions in England and the United States. Drislcr 
 has tried to deny this (Carrollton Debate, p. 494-5), but 
 the very fact that they also erased '^pour [water for w^ash- 
 ing'^] out of their edition under the word louo, though 
 still retained in the English editions and quoted by 
 the Baptist Ingham, on Baptism, p. 445, the work most 
 relied on by Dr. Graves in his quotations, shows that 
 it was the Baptist pressure that did it. On louo and 
 its connection with baptism see the laver argument, 
 and our chapter on Wash.f But we must in a note be- 
 Maj^ 1870 (Debate, p. 283), he copies Suidas on haptidzo thus, " To im- 
 merse, to immerge to dip, to dip in," after Dr. Conant had told him 
 Suidas does not define it at all, and I had so told him. He copies the 
 errors of hosts of old citations in this way. It is shameful. 
 
 ••■'ISrote here, "bathe" and "wet," as well as "steep," are not put as 
 metaphorical meanings. Yet Dr. Graves always treats such as meta- 
 phorical — e. g. in case of Gazes. 
 
 t Dr. Graves (Carrollton debate) eulogizes this work so much that it 
 is proper to add more than its character entitles it to at our hands. No 
 one denies its excellence, for it is only an abridged translation of a great 
 work, with, of course, a few additions on a few unimportant words, com- 
 paratively speaking. Liddell & Scott first define haptidzo as we quote it, 
 and boast of their lexicon in a way soon to be quoted. 1. The first def- 
 inition is " to dip repeatedly." Is that the priynary meaning of haptidzo? 
 
156 BAPTISM. 
 
 low give some facts on Liddell & Scott's Lexicon that 
 Avill not only throw light upon its claims on this point, 
 but also shed much light on the history of this word and 
 philology. If it was the scholarship of Europe and 
 America that forced Liddell & Scott to erase " pour 
 upon," why all these other changes — at least eleven on 
 
 Do immersionists dip people repeatedly for baptism ? O, but he took 
 that out! Well, then, if he blundered on that point so seriously, n^ay he 
 not blunder on others ? 2. He now has that part thus, " To dip in or 
 under water (Aristoph. of ships), to sink them" ( Polj'b. ii, 51, etc.). 
 Well, this is the last edition. Is it better than the first? If it is only 
 " dip in " water, it never means that, nor does he cite a case where it 
 does. It is "of ships, to sink them." Do ships that only dip sink? 
 Never. If they sink, it is not dip, for to dip is to put in, partly or 
 wholly, and immediately withdraw, take out. He cites the same passage 
 to support this definition that he cited for the former. 3. He then gave 
 " (2) to draw water." Where does it mean " to draw water " ? He cites 
 no case of haptidzo for that. But he erased that also. Did he? Wrong 
 again, then! Mark that four changes. Well, he had "steep" in that 
 edition. 5. O, but he took " steep " out ! Did he ? That makes five 
 changes. 6. But he had " wet " as a meaning. But he took that out. 
 That makes six changes ! Pretty good, this ; surely he is reliable I He 
 has taken out so much good Baptists will sleep soundly now. As he 
 professed to follow Passow's correct method, and " make each article a 
 history of the word," surely he will stop now; for if he did this he 
 could hardly blunder much. 7. But he had " drench " as a meaning. 
 O, but he took that out. Indeed ! 'J'hen Baptists can nod refreshingly, 
 for this marks eight changes on one little word. But he does not stop. 
 8. In the first edition it was " overwhelmed with questions." In the 
 second edition that meaning is changed [ ! ! ] to "a boy drowned with 
 questions " ! Nine changes, and worse still. " Drowned with ques- 
 tions " ! That ought to do. Lexicons always render it, as a rule, either 
 " confused" or "overwhelmed with questions." But in the last edition 
 he changes that to " seeing him drowned with questions." Ten changes, 
 and the same one citation in Plato given to sustain these changes ! Will 
 not ten changes do? No! 10. In the first edition it meant (2) "to dip 
 a vessel, to draw water." Now he has "to draw wine from bowls in 
 cups" (of course by dipping them).. In the Greek of this jDassage it is 
 simply that they baptized, i. e. became drunk, out of [e/c] the great wine- 
 jars," etc. (See the passage examined under classic citations.) There 
 is no dip in hapiidzo — never. It is due to Liddell & Scott to say they 
 
LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 11)7 
 
 one word? Why did not that scholarship force Suicer, 
 Swarzius, Stokius^ Schneider, Schaetgennius, Schleusner, 
 to talve out pour, sprinkle, etc., found in all their editions, 
 or words equivalent to both? And why allow the still 
 later Passow, Host, Palm, and Pape, late as 1874, to put 
 in both "sprinkle" and "pour upon'' in lexicons used 
 universally by the great scholars of all countries ? 
 
 24. Swarzius. * '^Baptidzo: To baptize, immerse, to 
 overwhelm, to dip into, to wash by immersing. Some- 
 times to sprinkle, to besprinkle, to pour upon," etc. 
 apologize for their lexicon by saying, "For tlie most part we had only 
 spare hours to bestow " on the work — " time was limited " (Preface, xvii). 
 But they say they " always sought to give the earliest authority for its 
 first " meaning. Yet the earliest they give for immerse, i. e. " sink," is 
 Polybius, one hundred and fifty or hundred and sixty years before 
 Christ. The earliest for " dip " is long after Christ, and a false render- 
 ing. They tell us that there are few words that do not change their 
 meanings in the downward course of time (2 Preface, xx). Also that a 
 word occurs in Homer often only in a metaphorical sense that occurs in 
 a literal sense first in Plato. This is correct, and is well said. Baptidzo 
 meets us first in metaphorical use in Pindar, and never occurring 
 in an extant author in a literal sense till once in Aristotle. All these 
 things will be given in due time. But hear L. & S. (Preface, xx) : 
 "After the Attic writers, Greek underwent a great change." This change 
 he notes as complete in Polyhius and all later writers. Note well, then, 
 
 that NO LEXICON IN EXISTENCE GIVES IMMEKSE OR DIP AS A MEANING 
 
 OF BAPTIDZO EARLIER THAN Polybius, Diodorus Siculus, AND Plu- 
 tarch, Polybius being the earliest. Liddell & Scott do not give "im- 
 merse" in theirs at all, while Stephanus, Scapula, Pasor, Hedericus. 
 do not give dip at all, as either a classic or Bible meaning. Liddell 
 & Scotl give a catalogue of their authors, that we may know the cen- 
 tury and age in which they wrote; that we may "determine the time 
 of a word's first usage, and of its subsequent changes of signification." 
 This shows what they mean by primary meaning. Hence dip being sup- 
 ported by no early authority in L. & S.'s estimation, it is no " primary " 
 meaning. 
 
 "*See this lexicon, a large one indeed, and of high standing, quoted 
 correctly, and word for word as above, in Ingham's Hand-book on 
 Baptism (Baptist work, p. 40); and in Booth's (a Baptist) Pedobaptist 
 (in Baptist Library, p. 351-2). 
 
158 BAPTISM. 
 
 25. E. Leigh^s Oritica Sacra (Lexicon) New Testament. 
 ^'Baptidzo : To baptize (occurs thus often), from bapto, to 
 wet, to plunge, etc., and primarily may signify any kind 
 of washing, or immersion, which may be in water- vessels 
 in which we immerse linen. Yet generally and very fre- 
 quently it is taken also for any kind of washing, cleans- 
 ing, or purification, even of that where is no immer- 
 sion, as Matthew iii, 11, 22; Mark vii,- 4, etc., etc."* 
 He, then, quoting a number of texts in support of this, 
 quotes Vossius where it is, "III. To sprinkle or cleanse 
 the body of any one sacramentally (Matt, iii, 11).'^ f 
 
 26. Suicer, whom Dr. Smith thinks the best lexicon 
 ever prepared for the interpretation of New Testament 
 words, and certainly for its purpose the ablest extant, 
 elaborates the word through a series of large folio pages 
 in its patristic use. He tells us baptldzo is stronger than 
 epipoladzo, to swim lightly, and " less than dunein;^^ but as 
 Conant and Carson J crush this silly theory of Beza, Vos- 
 sius, Suicer, etc., we need not quote it so often in the old 
 writers. Then, pursuing the view of the old school, he 
 says, as Beza does in substance, '' But because any thing 
 is accustomed to be mersed or dipped that it may be 
 washed and cleansed, hence it occurs as taval [tabhat] m 
 the Hebrew, which the Seventy translate (2 Kings v, 14) 
 
 * BaTTTi^u, baptizo, scepe ... a jSarrrcj, tingo, mergo, etc., et primario 
 signlficet isiiusmodi loUojiem seu immersionem, quce in vasis aquariis sit, 
 quibus lintea immergimus ; iamen largius et latins etiam sumitur pro 
 quocunque genere ahliitionis, prolutionsi seu mundationis, etiam illius, cui 
 nulla iinmersionis species adest; ut Matt, iii, 11, et xx, 22; Marc, vii, 4, 
 etc., etc. 
 
 t III. Aspergere seu abluere corpus alicujus sacramentaliter (Matt, 
 iii, 11). To cite the number of times that Dr. G. misquotes Leigh 
 would be a waste of paper. Leigh, after the above, cites a number of 
 authors oi both sides of the question up to his time, and Dr. G. cites the 
 immersionists invariably, as Dr. Leigh! ! 
 
LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 109 
 
 by bantidzOj and is taken for rachats, which is to wash ; 
 similarly in Greek Ho baptidzein/ by a metalepsis is used 
 for the same [lavare, to wash], as Judith xii, 8 (?) [7] ; Si- 
 rach xxxiv, 30 ; Luke xi, 38/^ He then shows the fathers 
 use it for immerse also in vast numbers of cases after the 
 fourth century. Then " the thing signified is represented 
 l^y immersion or sprinkling.'^* 
 
 27. Schneider, the next best classic lexicon issued, 
 Leibzig, 1819. Baptidzo, from bapto : I dip under ; thence 
 as brecko [i. e. moisten, shed forth, sprinkle.] Also meta- 
 phorically to be thoroughly drunk, overwhelm with debts, 
 etc. [classics given] ; ... to wash,'' etc. 
 
 28. Wolfius: '^This word \baptidxo, Luke xi, 38] 
 means washing done by sprinkling.'' f 
 
 29. Passow. The great Passow, the master critic of 
 all classic lexicons, to whom Liddell & Scott, Pickering, 
 and all others now profess to look for aid, we reserve as 
 the last Greek lexicon quoted, next to the Thesaurus of 
 Stephens the largest — three large volumes, the first con- 
 taining eighteen hundred and eighty-four double-column 
 pages, fine print — thus deposes : '^ Baptidzo, from bapto : 
 1. Oft and repeatedly to immerse, submerse, with eis 
 [into] and pros tl, in respect to any thing. . . Thence to 
 moisten, to wet, sprinkle, hoi bebaptismenoi, translate, 
 made drunk, vino madidi [Latin, soaked with wine]. 
 Generally to besprinkle, to pour upon, to overwhelm, to 
 burden with taxes, with debts (oppress), to confuse with 
 
 -Thesaurus Eccles. E. Pat. Grsecis, 2 vols., folio, 1728 — Ees signifi- 
 cata, quce per immersioyieyn aid aspersionem adutnhratur. 
 
 t Ed. 1841, p. 489, vol. 1.— BaTrWCw (/^aTrrw), oft u. wiederhalt ein- 
 tauchen, undertauchen. E/f w. Trpof Ti Plut. auch zvtlvl dah. Benetzen, 
 anfeuchten, begiessen . . . betrunken, mno madidi, iiber, iibergiessen, 
 uberschutten, iiberhaufen, mit Abgaben, mit schulden uberladen mit 
 fragen iiberschuttet (2 Schopfen, 3 taufen, med.), sich taufen lossenj 
 auch baden, waschen. 
 
IGO BAPTISM. 
 
 questions. 2. Pump water. 3. Baptize, suffer oneself to 
 be baptized, also to bathe, to wash."* 
 
 30. Rost and Palm, in three volumes, the latest save 
 Pape. '^Baptidzo: fOft and repeatedly to immerse, to sub- 
 merse. ... To moisten, to wet, to sprinkle, made drunk, 
 vino madidi. Generally to besprinkle, to pour upon,J to 
 overwhelm, to burden with taxes, with debts, to oppress. 
 (2) Draw [or pump] water. (3) To baptize, to suffer one- 
 self to be baptized; also to bathe, to wash." We close this 
 illustrious list with the latest and distinguished lexicogra- 
 pher, Prof W. Pape, of Berlin, 1874, in three volumes. 
 
 31. Pape. "Baj)tidzo:% To immerse, to submerse, 
 Plut. [extracts and renderings given to sustain this all 
 from late Greek]; to moisten [or wet], to besprinkle [or 
 pour upon, to besprinkle^]; [hoi hehaptismenoi\ those 
 drunk, Plato. To overwhelm with debts, Plutarch." 
 
 '^Verhitni hoc lationem inferat, aspersione. factam. Conf. . . . Doy- 
 lingii — Observat. Sacr, Wolfii Philol. et Crit., editio tertia, i, p. 658. 
 A semi-lexicon and expositor of vast learning. 
 
 t German same as in Passow, last quoted, which see. Liinemann's 
 Lat. Deut. Hand-worterbuch, 183], Aq^wq^ ]j erf undo, begiessen, oder be- 
 netzen. Fundo [pour] by giessen oder ausgiessen, etc.; auch schiitten, etc. 
 
 X Ingham, Baptist, in his Hand-book on Baptism, London, recently 
 issued, says, page 94, " Thus Professor Eost, in his German Greek-Lex- 
 icon, revised with the assistance of a native Greek, . . . under the 
 words wash, wet, pour, and the like [has] waschen, heneizen, giessen, be- 
 giessen . . . (Chris. Kev. vol. iii, p. 97.)" So here they agree th&t gies- 
 sen, begiessen is used for "2^our," not " pour over," as Dr. Graves's friend 
 Toy rendered it to conceal the truth, and by Eost in the above lexicon. 
 
 § BaTrWCw. 1. Eintauchen, undertauchen ; Plat., Qutest. Nat. 10; 
 [l/io'ia echiffe, etc. (Pol. viii, 8, etc.), gcheint fiaTrriCerai er wird auf dem 
 Meer herumgetrieben — anfeuchteyi, begiessen. Oi ftedaTTTiao/uevot, die 
 betrunkenen Plat, mit schulden iiberladen Plut. da ich den knaben schon 
 gantz tzeigedeckt sot, durch die Sophisterein des Gegners, Plat. 2. 
 E/c niduv (Schoffen, Plut. iii, N. T. u. K. S.), taufen. Med. sich taufen 
 lassen, lidivTiafia die Taufe, N. T. 
 
 ^ Like the Latin perfundere " begeisgen " means both to pour upon 
 and to besprinkle — perfuse. See the word in Passow, Eost, and Palm. 
 
LEXICONS ON BAPTIPZO. IC)] 
 
 2. " To draw water " [out of any thing], etc. 
 
 3. " In the New Testament and ecclesiastical historians, 
 to baptize. ^Middle voice, to suifer oneself to be baptized. 
 Baptisma, the baptism, in New Testament.'^ 
 
 In the light of these facts what are we to think of the 
 cry that no lexicon, ancient or modern, ever gave sprinkle 
 or pour as a meaning of bapto or haptichof Notice well — 
 
 1. That every one of these lexicons, save two, and the 
 great authors among the fathers who speak lexicograph- 
 ically, out of the thirty- one, give either sprinkle or pour or 
 (Schneider and Robinson) words equivalent to both, as 
 meanings and uses of baptidzo. The two exceptions are 
 Sophocles, who gives " perform ablution, to bathe, bathed 
 in tears,'^ where it is "baptize with tears ^^ — surely not im- 
 mersion; and Stephanus, who never gives dip as a mean- 
 ing at all, who never gives immerse as a New Testament 
 meaning, but expressly gives the New Testament meaning 
 thus: ^'Abluo, lavo^^ — only that, "to cleanse, to wash." 
 Whenever lavo is modal it is "besprinkle," and every 
 Latin lexicon we ever saw gives that as a prominent mean- 
 ing. Baptize "with tears" is certainly affusion. Hence, 
 thus — 
 
 2. Every one of the thirty-one authorities sustain affu- 
 sion as baptism. 
 
 3. Scapula, Pasor, Schrevellius,^ Hedericus, Morell, 
 etc., etc., mere abridgments of Stephanus, all give " abluo, 
 lavo/' from Stephanus, as the only meanings it has as an 
 ordinance in the New Testament, not one giving dip or 
 immerse as a New Testament meaning. Abluo is "to 
 cleanse"— no special mode. Lavo is to wash, bathe, be- 
 sprinkle — never dip or immerse. If our opponents insist 
 
 * Schrevellius giving simply immergo for classic usage. Baptize and 
 to'Orrrwash, bathe, besprinkle, as its N. T. meaning. 
 
 n 
 
1G2 BAPTISM. 
 
 Oil the classic lexicons as proper authorities here they 
 must abide their decision, that in the New Testament hap- 
 tidzo is never modal save when it is by sprinkling — never 
 dip, never immerse. 
 
 4. Not a lexicon on earth gives abluo, lavo as a classic 
 meaning of baptidzo. 
 
 5. If six men testify in court that A killed B, using a 
 generic or general term, and twenty-one good witnesses 
 testify that A killed B, shooting him through the head, 
 will not all say there is no discrepancy, that what the six 
 meant by kill the twenty-one mean by their terms? And 
 in view of the fact that kill embraces shoot as one of its 
 modes of destroying; that shooting eifects killing; that in 
 that case they mean to agree with the twenty -one? So 
 these lexicons, Scapula, Stephanus, Pasor, Schrevellius, 
 Hedericus and many more mean by '^ abluo, lavo^'^ what 
 these others do by sprinkle, pour, etc., etc. Hence, 
 
 6. The great school of lexicography is unanimously 
 with us on this question. 
 
 7. If Blackstone, Coke, Kent, Greenleaf, Chitty, etc. 
 all agree on a point of law, sustained by the Pandects 
 and Cicero; if Johnson, AYalker, Richardson, Worcester, 
 and Webster all substantially agree in the meaning of a 
 word, Avould not that end controversy on that point? We 
 would hang, convict a president, go to war, all on such 
 testimony, if the case depended only on whether it were 
 so or not, and such testimony were adduced that it was so. 
 Note again — 
 
 8. Those lexicons were all made either, first, by im- 
 mersionists (though they dipped their infants) when im- 
 mersion was the law of the land, and the only popular 
 mode — Buddseus, 1529; Stephanus, 1572; or, second, by 
 tliose who merely abridged the work of Stephens, copying 
 
LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 1G3 
 
 him word for word generally throughout, but leaving off 
 references that so fill up the space — Scapula, Pasor, He- 
 dericus, Schrevellius,* etc., etc.; or, third, by those who 
 abridged and diluted in translating Stephens's Latin into 
 English liberally — Donnegan, Dunbar, Pickering, etc.; or, 
 fourth, by those who still felt their influence and did not 
 wholly start out scientifically — Schneider, Passow, Kouma, 
 Gazes, etc. — yet made a great advance. 
 
 9. Not one shows that dip or immerse was the primary 
 meaning. They do not treat of primaries, but aim at pop- 
 ular, current meanings. The very fact that nearly all their 
 citations of proof-texts are from the later classic Greek, 
 and not one cites the earliest nor takes note of it on 
 either hapto or baptidzo in order, nor on the latter at all, 
 demonstrates that point. Had they been treating of pri- 
 mary meanings common decency would have compelled 
 them to take the primal occurrences of baptidzo, and that 
 first, whereas not one of them cites the earliest cases of it 
 at all. 
 
 10. That this was so, further appears from their entire 
 want of harmony in defining hapto and baptidzo. Not one 
 of the great body of old classic lexicons gives dip. as a 
 meaning of baptidzo — NOT one, including Stephanus, 
 Scapula, Hedericus, Pasor, Schrevellius, Robertson, 
 nor Ewing, Wahl, Schaetgennius, Arst, Morell, and 
 many others. But Carson says it means nothing but dip. 
 Of all the above not one gives dip. Arst gives " over- 
 whelm'' first; Schrevellius and others give baptize first; 
 Ewing gives "cover" first — a meaning it never has. 
 Schleusner gives definitions wholly different in his two 
 great lexicons; the one for the Greek of the old Testa- 
 
 ■•■ A. Campbell tells us originally Schrevellius had only mergo, sink, 
 and lavo. 
 
164 BAPTISM. 
 
 ment, the other for that of the New. They may be said 
 to define baptidzo radically different — being wholly unlike. 
 Wahl, a learned contemporary of Schleusner defines it in 
 his first edition, first, lavo, wash, then in brackets, classic 
 use, demerse, submerse; then, "second (New Testament 
 use), immerse." In a second edition the same year, 1829, 
 he reverses that, adds ^^ overwhelm/^ '^imbue,'^ takes out 
 "demerse, submerse,'' adds its New Testament use as equiv- 
 alent to the '^tTTTO) [nipto) of New Testament (Mark vii, 3, 
 e. g.). But in 1831, only two years later, he brings out an 
 edition, clianges it again, takes out "'immerse" from one 
 place of New Testament usage, heading a list of refer- 
 ences, and puts in its place sprinkle (perfundo). He is 
 the strongest immersionist of all New Testament lexicog- 
 raphers. Yet how can we rely on such changes as these? 
 If scientific accuracy and philological laws were his guide 
 this could not be. Liddell & Scott defines it "dip repeat- 
 edly," "wet, moisten, pour upon," etc. Under Baptist 
 pressure they erase wet or " moisten, pour upon " from 
 later editions. Baptists feel delighted at this. Now they 
 have a lexicon that suits them. What a shout they raised ! 
 They declare, then, that no definition is reliable that is not 
 supported by one or more references to Greek writers 
 where it has the meaning given. Alas for that, for the 
 first definition by Liddell & Scott can not be supported 
 by a single citation in the whole re])ublic of letters. It 
 no where means "to dip repeatedly."^ Yet this is his 
 first definition. Through a number of editions there it 
 has stood, a living falsehood stalking down through the 
 years to tell what blunders can be committed where no 
 scientific method is adopted on the word. They are all 
 equally wild on bapto, equally antagonistic, untrue as to 
 * See new Graves-Ditzlev Debate, p. 527, 401-2. 
 
LEXICONS ON BAPTIDZO. 165 
 
 method. Clearly and evidently the lexicons never aimed 
 at tracing primitive, but current meanings, as exhibited 
 especially in later writers. Nay, the fact that Wahl, 
 Schleusner, Liddell & Scott, Swarzius, etc., etc. do all 
 begin with the later Greek writers, not a lexicon in the 
 world beginning with the earlier — not to say earliest, as 
 they all ought — shows the immense influence Buddseus, 
 Stephanus, and Robert Constantine exerted on our lex- 
 icography through their ignorance of earlier writers. 
 
 11. To the thoughtful scholar it is a most important 
 matter that no lexicon has yet given Aristotle's use of 
 baptidzo, the first literal use of it known, nor that of the 
 Greeks before Plato. It shows that where Stephanus 
 and Buddseus stopped on that word their successors in the 
 lexical work tarried. 
 
 It is a favorite dodge of immersionists that wash, 
 cleanse {lavo, ahluo), as well as moisten, sprinkle, pour, are 
 metaphorical meanings of baptidzo; so meant by the lexi- 
 cons. To this we reply — 
 
 (1) By the whole body of the old lexicons, Buddseus, 
 Stephanus, Scapula, Hedericus, Pasor, Schrevellius, Mo- 
 rell, etc., lavo, ahluo (wash, cleanse) were the only New 
 Testament definitions given. Hence were literal, real 
 meanings. Whether held as derived meanings or not — 
 and they did so hold — derived meanings, all others agree, 
 are as literal and real as the primary meanings, the latter 
 often becoming actually obsolete. Derived meanings are 
 not to be confounded with metaphorical uses of meanings. 
 
 (2) The "sprinkle" and "pour upon'' are as literal 
 meanings as the immerse in those lexicons, so meant by 
 them. As stated, not one of them was discussing prima- 
 ries, and the fact that they all date immerse as a late 
 meaning shows that clearly enough. 
 
IGG BAPTISM. 
 
 12. By the rule Dr. Graves lays down since these 
 papers were prepared, wash, cleanse, sprinkle, pour, as the 
 modes of the wash, cleanse, are the primary meanings of 
 baptidzo. Not only so, but by his rule they are the only 
 meanings. Debate, p. 322, Dr. Graves says, "As deriva- 
 tives sometimes lose tlie last shade of the signification of 
 their primitive or root-origin — as tlngo once primarily 
 meant to dip, second, to dye, now it has lost its first, and 
 its secondary has become its primary — we are compelled 
 to go to standard Latin authors and learn the signification 
 they attach to it." 
 
 By this rule, along with his other, that the first mean- 
 ing attached by lexicons (Debate, p. 253) is the primary 
 and current meaning, wash, cleanse, effected by sprinkle, 
 pour, is the only New Testament meaning of baptidzo; for 
 nine tenths of all the lexicons give these as the first and 
 only New Testament meanings. Vie pass by the absurd- 
 ities of the above as well as its untrue assertion on tingo, 
 as it is fully treated elsewhere. 
 
 13. Our position harmonizes all the facts and all the 
 meanings of baptidzo; is in perfect harmony with the laws 
 of language, the principles of philology in all languages, 
 whether Semitic or Aryan (Indo-European), and hence 
 can not be wrong. 
 
 14. AVe will see that the lexicography of Hebrew and 
 all the languages of the earliest versions will overwhelm- 
 ingly support affusion as the apostolic mode of baptism. 
 We reserve them till w^e treat of classic use. 
 
 15. Hence we see the force of Carson\s noted words, 
 " My position is, that it [baptidzo'] always signifies to dip; 
 never expressing any thing but mode. Now, as I have 
 all the lexicographers and commentators against me in 
 this opinion, it will be necessary to say a word or two 
 
LEXICON'S ON BAPTIDZO. 1G7 
 
 with respect to the authority of lexicons. Many may be 
 startled at the idea of refusing to submit to the unani- 
 mous authority of lexicons as an instance of the boldest 
 iSkepticism^' (pp. 55, 56). Yes; we should think so. He 
 then urges that lexicons '^ are not an ultimate authority." 
 *^ Actual inspection" of the places where it occurs must 
 settle its meaning. This is true; but had not they done 
 this as well as Dr. C. 
 
168 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER XIV. 
 
 PHILOLOGY. 
 
 There is something, as already shown, inhering in the 
 Bible use of baptidzo which purify, wash, sprinkle, immerse, 
 dip, separately or all combined, can not represent. Had 
 pnrify or sanctify merely been meant, kathairo, kathaj-idzOy 
 hagiadzo would have been used. Had wash merely been 
 meant, louo^ nipto, pluno, apokludzo would have been used. 
 Had inimersion been meant, kataduo, huthidzo, pontidzoy 
 katapontidzo, enduo would have been used. Had sprinkle 
 merely been meant, raino, rantidzo, katajjosso, or p>^'oscheo, 
 etc. would have been used. No other word than baptidzo 
 itself does or can represent the ordinance in its full and 
 true import. No other word perfectly translates it as it 
 habitually occurs in the New Testament. Wash, far more 
 properly sprinkle, more perfectly represents it in Mark 
 vii, 4, and Luke xi, 38, because it is not there used as a 
 heaven-sanctioned rite, and it was a mere sprinkling of 
 water for traditional baptism. Immerse, dip, plunge, 
 sprinkle, pour are but actions, not implying necessarily 
 any religious idea or fact, nor the Unity, power, or eflPect 
 of religious truth; nay, not the element itself — water. 
 When, therefore, we show that primarily baptidzo has this 
 or derivatively another meaning, as a word a})plied to ex- 
 press an action, it does not follow that either of these 
 meanings will fairly represent it when applied to a rite. 
 Such a thing never occurs as to any word. The original 
 
PHILOLOGY. 169 
 
 Hebrew for circumcise, paschal feast, etc. are illustra- 
 tions. 
 
 People are immersed, dipped, plunged in oil, in blood, 
 in mud, in filth, in trouble. These words imply merely 
 actions or modes of doing, and are but parts of the whole 
 accomplished. As sprinkle, pour upon, dip, immerse, 
 plunge are but actions by which some fact may be accom- 
 plished, and hence are but a part of the thing done or fact 
 accomplished, they are only a part thereof and can not be 
 equivalent to the whole. 
 
 Let us now examine the philological foundation of all 
 the assumptions of immersionists. It assumes — 
 
 1. That immersion is a primary idea, w'hich is impossi- 
 ble and absurd. 
 
 2. That immersion and dip are exactly the same. 
 
 3. Thut immersion is the primary meaning of baptidzo 
 and its root, bapto, without a word of proof oifered. 
 
 4. That wash, cleanse, is a philological effect of immer- 
 sion, wdiich will be found to be against all the facts and 
 science of language, and utterly unhistoric besides. 
 
 Immersion is itself a compound in form and meaning 
 and a derivative in thought. The English of immerse is 
 "sink in.''* 
 
 1. The idea of sinking in is not a primary. To sink in 
 implies pressure and a yielding element. Hence it is not 
 a primary or simple idea. In different languages immer- 
 sion is often a derivative from press, burden, overburden, 
 and it always implies that. Whatever falls upon, pours 
 upon, rolls upon, presses down, and if the objects receiving 
 such elements are in a condition to sink, that ensues of 
 course. Whatever may fall or pour upon an object, there- 
 
 *■/7^, put "im" for euphony, and mergo, to sink. This fact, meaning 
 " sink in," will he duly elaborated and proved. A. Campbell, Conant, 
 Wilkes, Graves, all support it. 
 
170 BAPTISM. 
 
 fore, is liable to immerse it. Hence the hosts of words we 
 shall find meaning sprinkle, pour, etc. that come to mean 
 immerse. 
 
 2. Mersion, immersion, is so far from implying wash- 
 ing, cleansing, as a sequence, that it does not involve or 
 imply any particular element, and as often applies to filth, 
 to mud, etc. as to any other element. 
 
 3. Indeed immersion constantly occurs in Latin, in 
 Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Persic, Arabic, German, and in 
 English, etc. etc., where just the reverse of wash, cleanse, 
 is to be found. Persons and things are immersed in mud, 
 in filth, in blood, in dye, in vats, in stenchy pools, in slime. 
 Hence in many languages it means to contaminate, defile, 
 make filthy. Gesenius, Castel], and Schindler thus define 
 tama.^ 
 
 4. In no language of which we have any knowledge 
 does any word that properly and primarily implies mer- 
 sion, dipping — that is, used generally and properly for 
 mersion, immersion, or dipping — mean to wash, cleanse, 
 or purify. In no lexicon, and in no writer in Latin, 
 Greek, Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, Persic, iEthiopic, Chaldee, 
 Italian, Spanish, German, or Portuguese, did we ever find 
 a passage where immerse, dip, or plunge meant to wash or 
 cleanse or purify. No lexicon we ever saw defines any 
 word that properly and strictly meant immerse, dip, or 
 plunge by to wash or cleanse or purify. The Hebrew 
 tabha, immerse,t the Greek enduo, hataduo, 2:)ontidzo, bu- 
 
 •;i:-X^*J^ tama, Arabic, to immerse, "defile, to contaminate" (Ge- 
 senius). "The primary idea is that of immersing" (Gesenius). Yet 
 "unclean, defiled, polluted" (Lev. xv, 32; xxi, 4; Hos. ix, 4). 
 
 t ^^^^ tabha; Hottinger, immersus ; Gesenius, immersit ; Castell, im- 
 mersus ; Schindler, immersus; so Buxtorf, etc. Not one begins tabhal 
 with immerse. "^5.^, mersit^ suhmersus fult, demersus fuit, im, and sub- 
 onersus aqua. Castell, Freytag, Schindler. 
 
PHILOLOGY. 171 
 
 thidzo, katapontidzo, immerse, dupto, kolumbao, to dip,* 
 often occur, and are rendered in our Bible by the English 
 of immerse — '^to sink," e. g. Exodus xv, 5, 10; Psalms 
 cxxiv, 4; Ixix, 2, 15; liv, 9; Ecclesiastes x, 12; Jeremiah 
 ii, 2 ; Matthew xviii, 6 ; xiv, 30 ; 1 Timothy vi, 9 ; Luke v, 
 7; 2 Maccabees (Apoc.) xii, 4. 
 
 PRINCIPLES OF PHILOLOGY. 
 
 The following words in Arabic definitely mean to im- 
 merse, never sprinkle, rain, or pour: 1, gamasa; 2, ga- 
 inara; 3, amasa; 4, dala; 5, atta (*Ji?) ; 6, gar a; 7, gautsa, 
 guts^ — seven words all meaning repeatedly to immerse; 
 most of them mean to immerse in water. Yet not one of 
 them ever means to wash. Not one of them ever means 
 to intoxicate, to overflow, overwhelm, inundate, intox- 
 icate, make drunk, moisten, wet, rain — never have those 
 meanings that so perfectly inhere in bapto or haptidzo — 
 never mean stain, dye, color. Notice by the Latin below 
 that often immerse comes from depress, oppress, and words 
 that mean to immerse or dip never mean to wash, etc. 
 ONLY where sprinkle, pour, moisten, etc. are the primary 
 meanings, and immerse a derived meaning. The ^thi- 
 opic has a word (maab) for immerse; but it never means 
 wash, cleanse, wet, intoxicate, etc. The Persic has a word 
 
 ■'• AvTTTO), taucheii, imdertauehen ; Passow, Rost, Palm, Pope, Pape — 
 dupto, imdertauehen, kephnlas els hudor. 
 
 t Arab. DhiH, demersit eum in aquani, demersH semei in aquam, mer- 
 gantur, etc, 1)2^ (gamara), mersit, submersiis fuit, demersus fuit, im-, 
 submersus aqua; TSX"! (Heb. '"'11), depressitimmersit ve in aqua; 132?, atta, 
 oppressit, demersit, depresserunt . . . merserunt, vii demersus in aquam 
 fuit, semet immersit, com.pressio ; 111?, Arab, gora, descendit, depressua 
 fuit, demersus fuit (three times repeated), depressus ; Vii?, Arab, gautsa^ 
 se demersit sub aquam, submersit. Castell, Schindler, Freytag. 
 
172 BAPTISM. 
 
 ghuta, to immerse in water ; "^^ yet it never means to wash, 
 cleanse, etc. The Hebrew words for immerse properly 
 and strictly mean primarily to impress, depress, then im- 
 merse. Thus tabha,j which in the Bible always means im- 
 merse, kaphashyX to depress, impress, immerse ; shaqah,§ to 
 submerse, depress into the deep, compress, demerse. The 
 German dip, dip under, immerse,^ no more mean to 
 wash, to cleanse, than does our dip, sink. First, it is re- 
 markable too from the standpoint of immersionists that 
 not one of all these words for immerse is ever used in all 
 the ancient versions translated from tlie original f )r bap- 
 tize. It is well to notice, second, that dip never comes 
 from immerse in all these words; third, that all words 
 that properly and certainly mean to immerse, submerse, 
 not only never mean dip, but are not defined by tingo, in- 
 t'lngo as is tahhal and hapto. They are never used by any 
 lexicon to define tahlia, immerse. In Arabic dahaha means 
 "to depress or immerse with violence" or force, while 
 yachal means " to demerse, and make filthy." 
 
 Is it not astonishing that men of learning should base 
 their main arguments on supposed laws of language as- 
 sumed to be fundamental, being the foundation on which 
 all their superstructure rests, so absolutely vain and a pure 
 delusion ? They assume that wash, cleanse, is the effect of 
 immersion, a philological effect based on fact, and proceed 
 from that standpoint to make their arguments, Avhen not 
 an instance has ever been adduced to vindicate the bold 
 
 ■^'Maah, maha ; ^thiopic, suhmersit (Castell); Ghuta, Persic, in 
 aquam immergere, demersio in aqnam (Castell). 
 
 ■f^'^, iabha,fgi, injigi, immergi demergi (Buxtorf, Castell). 
 
 t^'z'^, knphash, deprcssH . . . immersit (Castell). 
 
 g^'F^', suhnersiis, in profundum depressus, eompressus est, demersit 
 
 (Castell). 
 
 II Taiichen, nndcriaucfien, alnken. 
 
PHILOLOGY. 1/3 
 
 assumption, and not a fact in the whole babbling earth can 
 be adduced to support it. Nay, so far from it being sup- 
 ported, there is every reason why the reverse should be 
 true, since immersion is so far from pliilologically imply- 
 ing washing that there is no necessary connection between 
 the two ideas, immersion applying as readily to soiling, 
 staining, defiling, and corrupting elements as purifying 
 ones. Indeed Dr. Conant and Prof Mell, of Georgia, tell 
 us truly that bapto and baptidzo take as the elements into 
 which they "put'' the subject, "honey, wax, . . . gall, 
 oil, vinegar, soup, moist earth, broth, fat, filth" (Mell, 
 pp. 13, 14, on Baptism, replying to Dr. Summers). Here 
 every element named defiles, unless the vinegar be ex- 
 cepted. Surely, as these are the elements, save water, into 
 which baptidzo (for it takes them all; bapto takes "dirt;'' 
 both take "the human body," and often "blood") intro- 
 duces its subjects when meaning to immerse, it argues 
 poorly for wash as a consequent meaning. Note well, in 
 not an author or place where baptidzo does mean to im- 
 merse does it ever mean to wash, cleanse, or purify. 
 
 PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 
 
 While on the one hand immerse and dip, i. e. the proper 
 words for dip or immerse, never mean to wash, cleanse, 
 it will be found that in various ancient languages, espe- 
 cially in all those in which the Bible was originally writ- 
 ten and its earliest versions made, the words for wash, both 
 as to the body and the hands and face, the proper words 
 for wash, cleanse, never mean to dip, immerse, but do in 
 most cases radically mean — some of them, to sprinkle, 
 others to moisten where it is by falling rain, dew, or slight 
 aspersion of liquid ; or as in other cases, words are used 
 
174 BAPTISM. 
 
 meaning to pour, shed forth, drop, as of water; or as in 
 others still they mean wash, pour, sprinkle, as louo, nipto. 
 In Hebrew Ave have rachats, wash, pour; kabas, wash; 
 while matar, to rain, wet with rain, sprinkle,* is rendered 
 by nipto, to wash, and in Arabic is ^Ho sprinkle, pour, 
 rain, wet," yet to wash, to cleanse. f In Arabic gasala is 
 to wash, sprinkle, perfuse ; never dip, immerse. It is the 
 word most constantly used for wash. In German waschen, 
 badeuj wash, bathe; in Latin lavo, abluo; their corresponding 
 words in French, Spanish, Italian, Portuguese never mean 
 dip or immerse. On nipto, pluno (from j^/wo, to moisten, 
 wet, rain),J to wash, sprinkle, louo, wash, pour, sprinkle,§ 
 see the fuller facts in the separate chapter on Wash. In 
 ^thiopic rachats, wash, means primarily to sweat, per- 
 spire, and then in Arabic next it means to wash, to cleanse, 
 because perspiring profusely cleanses. We see wash de- 
 rived from pour, rain, sprinkle, sweat, moisten — never 
 from immerse. 
 
 The English Liddell & Scott's Greek Lexicon gives 
 under ^' louo, wash, pour [water for washing'^]. Many other 
 authorities support the same, none against. See chapter 
 on Wash. 
 
 There is another word we may notice in Greek that 
 means to wash as well as to w^et, moisten, rendered " wet- 
 ted " by Dr. Conant and Elder Wilkes (Louisville Debate, 
 p. 619). It is used by Clemens Alexandrinus, a.d. 190, 
 and Theophylact as defining baptidzo as to mode. It 
 
 * Pluvid rigaius, depluit, pluviam demisit. Arabic, Jluii, perfudit, 
 perfusus, jiuit, etc. 
 
 t Lavando urgeni et mundando (Castell, 2043). Other words in He- 
 brew, etc. of affusion meaning to wash, cleanse, etc. will be given in 
 abundance soon. 
 
 X Benetzen, anfeuchten. Latin, pliio v. fiuo. Passow, Eost, Palm, 
 Pape. 
 
 ? Galen, Stephanu", Hippocrates. 
 
PHILOLOGY. 175 
 
 means to wash. It is compounded of hugros, liquid, water, 
 same as huddr, water, and raino, to sprinkle. Here the 
 word raino, the root of rantidzo, to sprinkle, comes to 
 apply to washing, as well as other words of like primary 
 force. 
 
 The Hebrew word wash (rachats, loiio, nipto, etc. in 
 Greek) primarily means ^4o bubble up, to flow, pour out, 
 to drip." It is translated pour [cheo) in the Septuagint 
 also. For more details on wash we refer to a future chap- 
 ter in this work on Wash. See the index. We see that 
 wash is not derivable from immerse; it is from sprinkle 
 and pour. 
 
176 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER XV. 
 
 Philology, or Science of Language. 
 
 Having shown now beyond question that immerse is 
 not the primary of wash, or purify, or cleanse — that wash 
 does not and can not philologically be derived from im- 
 merse, and that it is derived constantly from words that 
 both primarily and constantly mean to sprinkle, to pour, 
 and to wet or moisten simply, where words are used 
 mostly applicable to water (kludzo, hugros, hudor with 
 raino, sprinkle) — we proceed to show a number of words 
 that primarily mean to sprinkle, in some cases; to pour in 
 others; to moisten, wet, in others, where it is by affusion, 
 that derivatively come to mean to dip, to overflow, over- 
 whelm, drown, immerse, showing that immerse is j)hilolog- 
 ically derived from affusion, affusion never from immerse. 
 
 Immersionists are settled in nothing more securely to 
 their own satisfaction than in this: If a word means to 
 s})rinkle or pour it never can mean, or come to mean, to 
 immerse or dip. Hence as pedobaptists acknowledge that 
 baptidzo in classic Greek often naeans to immerse as well 
 as to whelm, etc., why, it can never include any other 
 mode or action than immerse. 
 
 1. Dr. Fraser (Baptism, p. 70): "It must remain an 
 impossibility to reconcile such opposite modes of applica- 
 tion as dipping and sprinkling." 
 
 2. Prof Wilson speaks of "The absurdity of attach- 
 ing opposite meanings to the same term." "The false 
 
PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LAXGT:AGE. 1(7 
 
 principle that the verb denotes the two distinct acts of 
 sprinkling and bathing ^^ (184, 185). 
 
 3. R. Ingham (Hand-book on Chris. Baptism, Lon- 
 don, 1865, pp. 184, 185): "We deny not that a copions 
 sprinkling may approximate to pouring; yea, that a 
 sprinkling might be so abundant that one person would 
 call it pouring and another would call it sprinkling. 
 Nor do we deny that in any language there is a word 
 which may not sometimes be used in the sense of pour- 
 ing and sometimes in the sense of sprinkling. Our belief 
 is that in no cultivated language under heaven does one 
 word mean definitely to immerse and also to pour and to 
 sprinkle. . . . Between immersion and either of the other 
 two there is an impassable gulf. . . . The explicit testi- 
 mony of lexicons that baptizo signifies to immerse, we 
 regard as evidence that it does not signify to pour or to 
 sprinkle. . . . We hesitate not to appeal to any man to 
 find a word which definitely signifies to immerse in the 
 English, or Latin, or Greek, or Hebrew language, and 
 Avhicli also signifies to pour and to sprinkle. We might 
 now leave this subject," etc. (109). 
 
 Dr. Fuller: "If it means to immerse then it does not 
 mean to sprinkle or to pour.'' "Indeed if it means im- 
 merse it can not mean to sprinkle or pour" (pp. 15, 25). 
 
 4. Hinton and Pres't Shannon : " Now if baptism does 
 indeed mean immerse, as all admit, it must (to say the 
 very least) be doubtful whether it can also mean to 
 sprinkle or to pour. Immerse, sprinkle, and pour are 
 three distinct ideas, expressed by difierent words in all 
 languages" (H. quoting S., p. 44). 
 
 5. Dr. Carson (Baptism, p. 52) : " But if the word 
 originally signifies to pour or to sprinkle, no process can 
 be supposed by which it would come to denote to dye. 
 
 12 
 
ITS BAPTISM. 
 
 . . . . The two meanings can have no consanguinity.'^ 
 " 7. I will state another canon equally self-evident, and 
 equally fatal to the doctrine of Mr. Ewing and all our 
 opponents. A word that applies to two modes can desig- 
 nate neither. . . . Without reference, then, to the practice 
 of the language, on the authority of self-evident truth, I 
 assert that hapto can not signify both to dip and pour or 
 sprinkle. I assert that in no language under heaven 
 can one word designate two modes. Now% we have the 
 confession of our opponents themselves that baptizo sig- 
 nifies to dip. If so, it can not also signify to pour or 
 sprinkle'' (p. 90). 
 
 6. A. Campbell (Chris. Baptism, pp. 147-149); "The 
 force of this argument recognizes only a concession which 
 no man can refuse, namely, that baptizo once signifies to 
 dip or immerse. This point conceded, and, according to 
 tlie law in such cases, it must always signify to dip." "If, 
 then, bciptizo once means to dip, it never can mean sprin- 
 kle, pour, or purify, unless these actions are identically 
 the same.'' 
 
 Yet Carson admits bapto is applied to sprinklings. 
 
 CAN A WORD MEAN TO DIP AND TO SPRINKLE? 
 
 To strengthen this they quote Leviticus xiv, 6-8, 15, 
 16, where the priest pours (yatsak) [/Jo>, cheo], dips {taval) 
 bapto J and sprinJdes \_nazahy pahoj^ rainol, the blood. Now, 
 says the immersionist, this shows " a clear distinction made 
 in English and Greek betwixt dipping, pouring, and 
 sprinkling." Ingham, p. 109; see Louisville Debate also, 
 p. 540; Mell, pp. 10, 11. This is regarded as a Gibralter 
 of immersion power. Let us see how readily it crumbles 
 before the batteries of truth. 
 
PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 179 
 
 1. If these be the invariable words for these specific 
 actions it utterly anniliilates our opponents and leaves us 
 untouched ; for the word dip in the corresponding Greek 
 is not baptklzo but bapto, which is only the root of the 
 word, and they say it has nothing to do with the ordi- 
 nance. 
 
 2. It is only a partial dip and does not imply submer- 
 gence. They demand a complete covering of the subject. 
 
 3. As dip occurs fifteen times in the Old Testament 
 and several times in the Xew, why is 60^3^0 used every 
 time in the Greek where any dip occurs in reality in the 
 original? for all ancient versions render 2 Kings v, 14, by 
 wash, not by dip, i. e. too, secho, waschen, etc. 
 
 4. Neither dip, immerse, sprinkle, nor pour as mere 
 actions can represent baptidzo in the religious sense it has 
 in the Bible. In the above passages the dip and pour are 
 mere subordinate actions, not words of ordinance. Puri- 
 fication was the ordinance ; these actions were to aid in 
 accomplishing it; hence mere words of action alone. 
 
 5. Only one of these words is here meant to be modal, 
 that is the word sprinkle, nor is it necessarily so. The 
 mode was not involved in the pour and dip. The one 
 was to put the element in the left hand — the log of oil. 
 The bird, only in part (see Jamieson, in loc), cedar, hys- 
 sop, and scarlet wool were to be baptized with (taval) the 
 blood of the slain bird, and mode was not involved, and 
 its head and wings were not even wet with the element, 
 though the bird was baptized. 
 
 6. The word yatsak (V^!).) pour, is translated sprinkle 
 repeatedly in the various Greek, Latin, and English ver- 
 sions, while the word nazah, sprinkle, is rendered wet, 
 moisten, overflow . . by the highest authorities. 
 
 7. Yet, our opponents assume that each of these words 
 
ISO BAPTISM. 
 
 has a single, definite, specifically-settled meaning in the 
 Bible, never departing therefrom, albeit they demand nazah, 
 sprinkle, shall be held to mean " astonish,''^ in Isaiah Hi, 15, 
 ^'So shall he sprinkle many nations," not allowing it to 
 refer to the commission, ''baptize*' all nations. They say 
 clieo being used in Greek for pour, raino for sprinkle, 
 hapto for dip [Hebrew yatsak, nazah, tahal], these words 
 can mean nothing else, because here set in such contrast. 
 Yet when Christ poured water in a basin, and on various 
 occasions when pour occurs, not only did he use a differ- 
 ent word (hallo) altogether, but when the people were 
 sprinkled that word for pour is often used. Nay, the 
 Greek has thirteen different words meaning to sprinkle, 
 and several more being quite equivalent, as tengo (r^^^w), 
 a number for pour, while the Hebrew has between seven- 
 teen and twenty for pour, eighteen for sprinkle. See the 
 list of some of them at the end of the chapter on Wash. 
 To fasten on one of each of these as if it alone was and 
 could be used to express the idea demanded, and deduce 
 thence a fundamental law in philology, is the extremity of 
 weakness. 
 
 Let us now put these canons or laws, so implicitly relied 
 on as the pillars of the immersion theory, to an actual 
 test on w^ords, many of which are not related to this ques- 
 tion, and see whether or not the same word may not mean 
 to sprinkle and to dip, to pour and to overwhelm, to sprin- 
 kle, to pour, and to immerse. AVe will test it in every 
 language that entered into the original composition and 
 earliest and best versions of the Bible. 
 
 1. [^'P^, naha or naga']. The primary force given by 
 Fiirst, Gesenius, Schindler, and Castell is to rend witii 
 violence, break off, be violent. In Arabic it means, *'to 
 sprinkle, to soften (by application of water), to moisten. 
 
PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 181 
 
 to make wet, to wash, to dip, to penetrate. Schindler.* 
 In ^thiopic the root is traced clearly to effervesce, bubble 
 or sparkle up of water, break off,t gush forth, applied to 
 a fountain of water breaking forth. See Psalms xxxv, 10; 
 Ixxvii, 49. So in Arabic it means 'Ho pour together, 
 flow-over, soften, saturate." But not only does Schindler 
 make it mean to dip, penetrate into, but Castell also, "to 
 be immersed in water, .... collection of saliva in the 
 mouth, to immerse oneself in water, descend, be im- 
 mersed." X 
 
 2. [*T^*^ shataph]. Gesenius defines this word *''to 
 gush or pour forth, to flow abundantly; (2) overflow. 
 The rain pouring out."§ Fiirst gives the primary mean- 
 ing "drop," "let fall," noun-form — "an outpouring, rain- 
 gust." Yet Schindler gives it also plunge, overflow, 
 overwhelm. Buxtorf gives it the derived force of "im- 
 merse." Castell gives it overflow, overwhelm, immerse. 
 iEthiopic, to plunge, submerse, ^f Primarily it means to 
 drop, of rain. Then in Leviticus it always means wash. 
 Later, in 1 Kings xxii, 38, it is to wash, where it is by 
 affusion. Later, in Ezekiel xxxviii, 22, it is a pouring 
 rain. Later still it came to mean overflow, overwhelm, 
 from its application to pouring rains. It never means 
 immerse in the earlier books of the Bible — never in 
 the Prophets or Psalms. In the latest Hebrew writings 
 it nearly always applies to overflowing, overwhelming. 
 
 ••• Infudit, maceravit, humectavit, madefecit, lavit, intinit, inirivit 
 
 t Hiscere, dehiscere, scindi, scaturire, ebullire, de aqua . . . fons vitce. 
 
 t Castell : Immersus fuit aquae, . . . collectio salivce in ore, . . . im- 
 mergere se aquae, . . . descendit, imynersum materioe peniius (2405-6). 
 
 lEffudit, largiter, pluvit, 2 inundavit — w. efusio, etc. (Thesaurus 
 Heb. Lin.) 
 
 ^Castell : Svpra — exundavU, inundavit, immersit. ^thiop., Mersus, 
 submersus est, suhmersif, demersit (p. 3737). 'Tti'i^Ms rendered in LXX, 
 by fi;?i'!f(y, km, and KaraK^l'^o), vIttto)^ cnrovirrrt^K ttavvu), KcraTrcvri'^ij), etc. 
 
182 BAPTISM. 
 
 Later still the Hebrews used it for immerse, and in the 
 third century after Christ it came to apply often to im- 
 mersion. Here is not only a full refutation of the immer- 
 sion canon, but a great i^ey to this controversy. But let 
 us multiply proofs. 
 
 3. We have seen that hapto, the root of baptldzo, means 
 to stain, color, applied to birds, to stones, etc. So zarak,^ 
 to sprinkle, besprinkle, pour out, in Hebrew, Chaldee, 
 and Syriac; in the latter means also to color, "to color 
 blue,'' "golden,'' and "various colors," while in Arabic, 
 from this meaning, it applies to variously-colored birds, 
 wet. 
 
 4. Nuphj noph,-\ to sprinkle, be sprinkled, pour out, 
 shed drops, agitate, etc. Arabic means the same ; to move, 
 agitate, hurl, throw. Kindred roots, e. g. nug, agitate, 
 commotion ; nuts (same root), to agitate, move, to moisten, 
 motion of water, then, washing, cleansing with water or 
 any liquid. J 
 
 5. Naphuts, to sprinkle, in Hebrew and Chaldee and 
 Arabic, and in the latter to pour means " to cleanse thor- 
 oughly." 
 
 6. Zarak, often applied to rain, means also to make wet, 
 to cast down, thrust down; then to rush forth, to press, 
 oppress; the very meanings that often lead to immerse, 
 submerse; next it means "to overwhelm." § Hence — 
 
 7. Dachas,^, to press, oppress, impress, immersed, 
 immersion. 
 
 ^"^ Zarak, sparsit, aspersii, conspersit . . . infudU, coerulareus, spar- 
 sus, sparsio, effusio, — color cceruleiis, acribus, etc., madefactxis (Castell). 
 
 t Nuph, noph. 
 
 X Lotio, ablutio, sine aqua sine alia re liquida (Castell). 
 
 § Rejecit, projecei, dejecit — noun form — pliivia temj)esHvia, 2^luvia 
 . . . ohrutus est (Castell). 
 
 \ Dachas, pressU, chal, compressit, hnijressU, . . . oppressio, . . . 
 immersus, . . . immersio (Castell). 
 
PHILOLOGY, OPw SCIEXCE OF LANGUAGE. 183 
 
 8. Makir, to rain, wet with rain, sprinkle, is translated 
 by the LXX nipto, to wash ; and in Arabic it is to rain, 
 to sprinkle, pour, then washing, cleansing/'" 
 
 9. Nataph, to shed drops, drop [as of rain] ; ^thiopic, 
 to cleanse ; Arabic, shed drops [as of rain], sprinkle, pour 
 out, to rain, to cleanse oneself, to purify.f 
 
 10. Natcd, Arabic, the same (natala), to press out, be- 
 sprinkle the head with rain, pour water, etc., . . pouring 
 out, wet, bedewed, . . . irrigated; in Chaldee, to wash, 
 cleanse, especially the hands. . . . for it is necessary that 
 the water be poured upon the hands before eating.^: 
 
 11. Zakhak, or zaquak, in Hebrew means to pour, shed 
 down, moisture, purify, make pure, shed forth, cleanse, 
 and the same in Chaldee. 
 
 First, in all these words we see the connection between 
 sprinkle and pour on the one hand, and Avash, cleanse, 
 purify or the other; second, every lexicon gives wash, 
 cleanse, as the prevailing meaning of baptidzo in the New 
 Testament, many confine themselves to those two mean- 
 ings; third, we fail to find any connection between im- 
 merse, even when "in water," and wash, cleanse, purify; 
 fourth, the Arabic words for immerse, four or five of 
 which mean immerse and have no other modal meaning, 
 never' mean, as baptidzo does, to wash, cleanse, nor as it 
 does in the classics often, whelm, overwhelm, overflow, 
 intoxicate. 
 
 12. Nazah is the Hebrew word that most commonly 
 
 * Matar pluvia rigaiiis, depluii, pluviam, demissii. Arabic, pluit, 
 perfudif, per-fusus, pluif, etc. (Castell). 
 
 t Hottinger, Sehindler, Castell, on nataph. 
 
 t Natal. Arabic, natala, expressit, impluvio perfudit caput, fudit 
 aquam, effusio. Chaldee, lavit, abltdt, pec. mamis . . . necesse est enim 
 effundehatur aqua ante prandium super nianus, etc. (Castell). This ig 
 the word often used by Jonathan Ben Uzziel to translate r achats, wa?^ 
 (Targuui on Exodus). 
 
184 BAPTISM. 
 
 means, like the Greek raino, to sprinkle. It is translated 
 sprinkle in the Septuagint every time it occurs, save once, 
 and always in the Vulgate. Yet Schindler renders it 
 not merely to sprinkle but to press out, bedew, make 
 wet, to flow, overflow, distill. Fiirst renders it moisten, 
 Avater, besprinkle, imbue, etc. In Arabic it means to 
 sprinkle with water, pour out, make wet. In ^thiopic, 
 to make clean, purify, cleanse. It applies to "the water 
 of purification'' (Num. viii, 7), then "to thrust down, to 
 submerse." * 
 
 These words cover all that baptidzo means save to 
 intoxicate, and we will find words that primarily mean to 
 sprinkle, to moisten, that cover that meaning amply, 
 though wholly unnecessary. 
 
 13. Ruh [as if ruhe], in Chaldee and Arabic, to expel, 
 throw out, spew out, to pour out, poured out, pour down 
 rain, a shower. The same root in Arabic {ruga), "spew 
 out, to strike, sprinkle, to immerse.'' f 
 
 14. Kechalj a Semitic word for stain, paint, Schaaf ren- 
 ders paint, stain, dip, sprinkle. % 
 
 15. Natmcha, Arabic, to pour out, sprinkle with water, 
 besprinkle with water, copious rain, sprinkling (Num. 
 xix, 9, 13, 20; 1 Pet. 12), sprinkled, yet to make wet, to 
 wash the members [i. e. of the body, limbs]. § 
 
 16. Ilattatha, Arabic, expansion, ... to moisten with 
 
 ^^ Nazah, sparsit aquam vel songuinem, aspersit, expressU, rogavit, 
 humectavit, . . . asperus fini, deffluxii, inundavit, silivat. Arabic, na^ 
 izad, sparsit, aqua consperit, effudit, rigavit . . . (Num. xix, 9, 13, 20, 
 etc.). JEthiopic, nazad, mtindus, purus fait m^mdavit ; aqua purijica- 
 iionisy purgavit, dejecit, submersit. Castell, Schindler. 
 
 t Ruga, spiima, percussit, aspersit, immersH, etc. (Castell). Ruts, same 
 root, sprinkle water, aquatn infudit. 
 
 X Kechal, . . . intinxit, asperglt (Syriac Lex, N. T.). 
 
 ^Natsacha in Arabic — effudit, etc., sparsus fuit^ . . . rigatus fuit 
 . . . abluit Tvemhra. 
 
PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 185 
 
 ointment or paint, wet with water, to sprinkle oneself co- 
 piously with ointment, to immerse oneself in water, mix- 
 ing, immersion, commotion, confusion, or agitation. * 
 
 17. Lathav, to wet with tears, to be given to tears, to 
 stain a garment, as with sweat, dew, immersion ... in 
 water or blood. It applies to drops of gum oozing out of 
 trees, moisture, bedew, tree-dropping juice or moisture, 
 make wet.f We will see that one of the Arabic words 
 for baptize applies to juice dropping from trees, from 
 juice, etc. 
 
 18. Ravah, to moisten, make drunk, irrigate. In these 
 senses this Hebrew word occurs many times; e. g. Isaiah 
 xvi, 9, ^^I will water thee with my tears.'' On drunken- 
 ness as a meaning see 1 Samuel xxv, 36, " Very drunken ;" 
 1 Kings xvi, 9, "Drinking himself drunk" (xx, 16; Jer. 
 xlviii, 26; John ii, 10, Arabic). It means irrigation (Is. 
 Iviii, 11). It applies in Arabic to the "agitation of the 
 earth, to drink, draw water, imbue with water, to irri- 
 gate" — often thus it occurs; then pouring rain, dew, dewy. J 
 Here a word applied to sprinklings, pouring rains, dews, 
 like baptldzo, means to be drunk, intoxicated, and, like 
 bapto^ to moisten, bedew, draw water, and, like both wordsj 
 to imbue, make wet, moisten, pour water, etc. 
 
 19. Letash, Chaldee, to sprinkle, in later days comes tc. 
 mean "to sprinkle or immerse;" and Buxtorf and Cas- 
 
 '^Mathath, expansio, . . , imbuit . . . miguenio vel pinguedine, . . 
 huynore imhutus fuit, . . . saturavit, miscuit, unguento se ahundi perfu 
 dit; mersit in aguam, . . . mixteo, mersio, etc. (Castell). 
 
 "f Lathav ynadita she irrorata fuit, manavit lachrymd succo ve arbou 
 . . . didiius lachrymal conspurcaxnt uti sudore, vestem, demersio, etc. 
 
 X Ravah madef actus, inebriatus, satiolus est pota, irrigus . . . Chat, 
 i. q. Heh. ib ebrius . . . irrigatio. Syr. e. q. Heb. Arab, agitata fuit 
 aqua per faciam terrce; confurbatio aquce supra terram . . . hausil 
 aquam, potavit, , . . imbuit himior^e, . . . irregavit . . . imbrem fundens, 
 . . . efin6m, . . . r«.§, roridntus (Caivtell, 35, 42-33. 
 
186 BAPTISM. 
 
 tell show that the word that means to make white, to 
 glitter, means to wash, to cleanse.* 
 
 20. Arabic garakaf primarily applies to bedewing, 
 dropping water, distilling rain, rain, dilute gently with 
 water, rain wetting herbs, comes to apply to a garment 
 dyed, like bapto, to objects ^^ submersed in the sea," ^Ho 
 be submersed," "to immerse," "immersed in water," as 
 well as "simply to pour water upon the head" as well as 
 irrigate. Schindler^s lexicon (folio) defines it to perspire, 
 sweat, decorate, color, pour (fuclit), and yet gives it the 
 meaning of immerse, demerse, twenty times. Does this 
 look as if the same word could not mean in some places to 
 sprinkle, in others to pour, to pour water upon objects, on 
 the head, and to immerse? 
 
 21. ChamatSj chamutSj means, Gesenius, Castell, etc. 
 tell us, to be sharp, acid, violent, to ferment. Hence to 
 scatter in drops, to sprinkle. Hence Buxtorf, "To be 
 sprinkled, stained, infected, made wet.";}: Schindler, "To 
 sprinkle with water," etc. Yet it comes to mean "to stain, 
 to dip, to immerse." § It is applied to water thus, "They 
 dipped them in the water." ^ It meant to oppress also. 
 
 22. Gamas, in Arabic, Schindler renders "dipped, im- 
 mersed," as well as "sprinkled." 
 
 23. Tomash is applied to wetting objects with tears (Ps. 
 
 *Chal. letash, sparsit, aspersit {p. 1918). In later Talmudic days, 
 "as})ergat vet immergat" (Lex. Tal. et Kab. J. Buxtorf, 1140). Chava. 
 white, etc. 
 
 '\Arak. Arabic, garaka, . . . leviier, aqua diluit, . . . gutta, aqtice, 
 pluvia valida, . . , imbris guttcp, imher herbes inadefaciens, herba pin- 
 guefaciens mublieres, . . gutta aqiice, etc. Curcuma tincta vestis, . . . 
 in mare submersce, mersum in corpore, submersus, . . . immersio, . . . 
 capitl semel affudit aquam. Castell and Preytag. 
 
 X Conspersits, tinctus vel infectus, madefactns, etc. 
 
 § Tlngere^ intingere, imynergere (Castell). 
 
 \ Jntingunt eos in aquam, as well as aqua perfudit (Schindler). 
 
PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 187 
 
 vi^ 7 — 6 in Hebrew), to staining a mountain with human 
 blood (Is. xxxiv, 3), yet is rendered ''merse, moisten, dip, 
 wash," etc. 
 
 24. Persic, phamv,^ " poured, pour out water, . . . de- 
 scend, go down and into the water, to immerse oneself, to 
 flow down." Often ^Ho depress, swallow, penetrate." 
 
 25. Shahal has the same root in Hebrew that tabhaly 
 baptize, has — bal — and means primarily to pour, to rain, 
 to flow. It is the same in Arabic, and means also "to 
 overflow, overwhelm," as haptldzo in the classics. 
 
 26. Shapha is kindred with tsevha, baptize, in Arabic 
 and Syriac, 'Ho flow down, to pour out, sprinkle, pour 
 forth, ... to depress or sink, to overwhelm." f 
 
 27. Tsuph, 'Uo pour upon, to moisten," ''to overflow," 
 "to inundate," "to overwhelm":!; are meanings. 
 
 28. Ratabj "to bedew, to wet, moistened, sprinkled, 
 irrigated, dipped." § 
 
 29. Nataph [root tab, as above in notab'], to drop, flow 
 in drops, flow down, distill, fall in drops, to cause to over- 
 flow. |1 
 
 30. PhutSy sprinkled, dispersed (after), poured, pour 
 out, scattered abroad, flow down, flow out, overflow^, over- 
 whelm, poured out, etc.^ 
 
 *■ lis, fundus, aquam effundere, . . . descendere, accidere et in aquam 
 . . . se immergere, defluere, etc. 
 
 -\AfflaxH, defluxit, . . . efudii, declinavit, descendit, depressit (Schind- 
 ler). Eff adit, prof udit — inundavit, profudit (Castell). 
 
 t '11i^ tsuph, supereffundo. Trommius, manure, fluere, irrigare, hi" 
 undere, . . . superindei, etc. (Fiirst and Castell). 
 
 I ^"^^J, niaduit, humidus, humectatus, perfusus, irrigatus, intingiintur 
 (Schindler). 
 
 II Guttavit, etc. Stellavit, . . . inundavit (Schindler). 
 
 ^ Y*5» phuts, sparsiis, disperses (repeated, etc.) fusus, effusus, diffusub 
 fuit, dejluit, effluxit, inundavit, exundavit, . . . effundatur, . . . iniinda^. 
 runt torrentes rivi, et Nilus, etc. (Schindler). 
 
188 BAPTISM. 
 
 31. Chalal, in Arabic/' to moisten, ... to pour/' yet 
 in Chaldee it is to wash, cleanse, applied to the washings 
 of Leviticus, e. g. chapter xvi. 
 
 32. Baradj to sprinkle hail, to hail, ^thiopic is the 
 same. In Arabic, to pour forth water, wash with cold 
 water, to wash oneself with cold water; then it is applied 
 to coloring various colors of garments, etc. 
 
 33. MotZj ^'primarily, to pour out'' is "to wash," ap- 
 plied to washing out the mouth, " moist, damp," yet ap- 
 plied to 'Svash oneself with a sacred washing."* 
 
 34. Nasak, to pour, pour out. Syriac, pour out, Ara- 
 bic, wash with water and purify, . . . wet with rain, of 
 the earth. 
 
 35. Arabic gasa is to rain, make wet with rain, pour 
 out, yet applies to painting, coloring, etc.f 
 
 36. Badar, Hebrew, to scatter. Syriac, to sprinkle, 
 scatter. Arabic badara is the same, to sow, sprinkle, scat- 
 ter, yet it comes to mean "to impart a yellow color," and 
 just like bapto, applies to coloring and adorning the eyes; 
 then, like baptidzo, in the classics, "to sprinkle with 
 words," a talkative man ; then to " cause to enter," re- 
 peated often; then it comes to mean "to submerse." J 
 
 37. Nazal, " to sprinkle, dip, or distill water, rain ; then 
 to depress, or press down, descend, let fall ; compress in 
 Arabic. Here is the idea of immersion. 
 
 38. Shakah in Semitic languages is "to water, drink, 
 irrigate, moisten, water," yet "to paint," to "impart bright 
 golden or red colors," imbue, just as bapto. 
 
 39. Words meaning to press, impress, compress come to 
 
 * Prim, infusa, etc. . , . lavit . . . ablutio . . . lavit se sacra loiione. 
 
 t Co77ipluit, rigavit ierram jduvid, . . . effums, etc. — ;;?Ziana rigatus, 
 . . . pinguescit, pinguendo (Castell, 2750). 
 
 X Badar^ sernnavit, sparsit, dispersit, . . . verbum sparser, . . . pen- 
 etrare fecit . . . szi^bmersii ( Castell) . 
 
PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 189 
 
 mean immerse very naturally and constantly. Yet the 
 same force of the word causes it to mean sprinkle often. 
 Pressing an object may sink, immerse it. Pressing an ob- 
 ject may cause juice to stream out of it, sap, moisture. A 
 grape, many objects pressed, causes the juice to be sprin- 
 kled. In cases where there are many as in a wine-vat, or 
 a large object full of moisture, it pours. Hence Arabic 
 atsara means "to press, compress."* Next it comes to 
 mean "shed drops, distill,'^ applied to water; then to 
 •^^ enter into^f being pressed "to flee,'^ from being op- 
 pressed; "rain" (pluvia), "juice" {succus) ; often it means 
 juice, sap, "oil" pressed out, "clouds forcing out rain," 
 " hail, snow, cold water " forced or thrust down, " sprin- 
 kled with water," or dew,J "immersed in water." § In 
 the above order all these with other kindred meanings 
 belong to this one word, and it occurs in each of these 
 senses. 
 
 Let us test the Latin language on these principles of 
 philology. 
 
 40. Conspergo, to sprinkle, is not only applied by Ovid 
 and the Latins to staining, polluting; but White's late 
 Latin lexicon gives "to cover" as a meaning, while as- 
 pergo, to sprinkle, means "to defile, spot, stain, fill," and 
 the root spargo, to sprinkle, means to be "spotted, cov- 
 ered, covered over," alluding to the colors, etc. It will be 
 remembered that tabhal, hapto, tseva, have those meanings, 
 spotted, colored, as of birds and garments thus colored. 
 
 41. Tingo^ is from the Greek tengo^ "to moisten, to 
 
 ^ Pressii, eompressii (Schindler), Pressit (Castell), 
 i Ligressus fiiit (Castell). 
 X Rore perfusum (Castell). 
 ^ In aqua iynrnergiiur (Castell). 
 
 ^ Tingo^ Greek rtvyu [ienggo or tengo"], to moisten. As this word 
 figures extensively in some parts, we refer to another place for a full 
 
190 BAPTISM. 
 
 make wet/' where it is by tears, dew, rain, all cases of 
 sprinkling, shedding forth, etc. Yet it comes to mean to 
 wash, where it is by affusion, to stain, color, dye by any 
 mode or process, then to dip, to plunge. 
 
 42. Madeo, to be wet, bedew, besprinkle, is thus de- 
 fined by Bullions's Latin Lexicon, 1869, ^' Madeo, to be 
 wet, to be moist, dripping wet, . . . intoxicated, . . . 
 sweat, perspire; madidus, wet, moist, metaphorically, full 
 of water, soft, .... intoxicated, ... a drunkard; 8. 
 soaked, dipped, dyed." How like bapto and in part bap- 
 tldzo f 
 
 The Greek language follows the same laws. 
 
 43. Pluno,^^ primarily to rain, flow (of water), to 
 moisten, sprinkle, pour, in early use. In Aristophanes it 
 came like baptidzo to mean " to abuse, revile, reproach" — 
 i. e. besprinkle with abuse, pour torrents of abuse on one, 
 Plunos was a lover. See Pickering's Lexicon. In De- 
 mosthenes pluno meant to abuse. It meant to wash, to 
 cleanse, and that became its general meaning in Greek. 
 
 44. Raino, to sprinkle, is defined by Pickering "to 
 sprinkle; passive, to be submerged." 
 
 45. Diugraino, sprinkle with water, wet. Groves de- 
 fines also by "wash," by "soak, overwhelm." 
 
 46. Katantleo.^ Dunbar defines it "to pour upon, to 
 bathe with water, ... to soothe with eloquence, to over- 
 discussion of it. (See on Tingo.) Hesychius defines it by i3pex^^C, 
 araTidCetg, irlripbiq, shed or sprinkle water, moisten, bedew, trickle down, 
 as tears. Stephanus: Tengo madefacio^ humecto ; then Hesychius, as 
 above. Lachrymarum giiUis rigare genas — wet the cheeks with drops 
 of tears. Pape: Tey^w — benitzen, anfeuchten. Thranen : Vergiessen — 
 moisten, wet, shed tears. 
 
 ••• Passow, Rest, and Palm : Karax^rZtw, driiberher gicssen oder schiit- 
 ten, dariiber ausgiessen, met. einen womit iiberschutten, iiberhaufen, etc, 
 2, Begiessen iibergiessen, iiberschutten. Galen cited. See their defini- 
 tions of baptidzo now in German — same words in large part. 
 
PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 191 
 
 whelm with or pour ridicule upon one." Pickering, "to 
 pour on ; to pump water upon ; to shower down (words) 
 on; to bathe with water; to overwhelm with or pour rid- 
 icule on one." 
 
 47. Cheo, to pour, Pickering defines by '^ cause to 
 flood," " to inter, to bury." 
 
 48. Brecho. Let it be remembered that "soak," "inun- 
 date," "drench," "overflow," "intoxicate," "overwhelm" 
 are all constantly-recurring meanings of baptidzo in classic 
 Greek. All immersionists agree to so translate it. Brecho 
 is a prominent definition of baptidzo by all native Greek 
 lexicons who define ancient Greek. Kouma and Gazes 
 both give it as a prominent meaning, and the great Ger- 
 man work of Schneider gives brecho as its general repre- 
 sentative, answering to the ^' benetzen^' of Pape, Post, 
 Palm, and Passow. Passow, Post, and Palm all define 
 brecho thus : " To wet, to moisten, to besprinkle ; thence, 
 in passive voice, to be wet, receive moisture, be wet with 
 rain, to rain, to tipple, soaked Avith wine, be drunk, to 
 pour upon, to overwhelm."^ 
 
 Em-brecho, same word intensified, "to soak, to dip in." 
 
 Liddell & Scott: Brecho, to wet, moisten, sprinkle, 
 rain on, met[aphorically], shower down." 
 
 Pickering: Brecho, to moisten, wet, water, to bedew, 
 besprinkle, soften, to rain, showier. Pass[ive], to be wet, 
 soaked. Metaphorically, to be soaked with liquor, hence 
 to be drunk or tipsy." 
 
 Stephanus: Brecho, to moisten, dip, soften, etc.f 
 
 Apo-brecho, to sprinkle, wet, to dip. J 
 
 * Bpe^Yw, benetzen, befeuchten, besprengen, dab. im. pass, sicb be- 
 netzen, . . . ein mit wein ueberfiilter, etc. Trukner : Madidus, liber- 
 schutten, iiberhaufen, etc. 'E//6/)c;i;w — einweicben, eintunken. 
 
 tBp£;j;w, madefacio, intingo, macero. Item irrigo, item bibo, . . . pluo. 
 
 X 'A'TToSpexo), iterjundo^ madefacio^ intingo^ etc. 
 
192 BAPTISM. 
 
 Em-hrechoy ^^to soak, to immerse ;'' yet it means "To 
 besprinkle, to sprinkle, likewise to merse/^* Suidas, 
 tenth century, defines it by "submersion/^ f 
 
 49. Deuo. Here is a word that Hesyohius, fourth cen- 
 tury, Suidas, tenth, native Greek lexicographers, give as 
 equivalent in meaning to hapto. Stephanus quotes where 
 it is used for ba^^to. It is quite important in this line. 
 
 Pickering: Deuo, to wet, to steep, to moisten, to soak, 
 to dye by immersion or sprinkling, ... to pour out, to 
 shed, cause to flow. 
 
 Liddell & Scott: Deuo, wet, soak, steep, . . . make 
 to flow, shed, . . . our [i. e. English] dew, bedew. 
 
 Groves: Deuo, to wet, water, moisten, bedew, sprinkle, 
 to tinge, dye, color, to soak, soften. 
 
 Stephanus: Deuo, wet, moisten, imbue, stain {tingo), 
 pour, besprinkle, infect, stain, bapheus.X He continues: 
 ^' Endeuo, to bedew, moisten, irrigate," as the equivalent 
 of embapto, and that as equivalent of embrecho, above. § 
 
 Here these great authorities place bapto, the root of 
 baptidzo, as the equivalent of words that mean to bedew, 
 shed down, pour, sprinkle. They sustain our laws of 
 philology unanimously. These words that primarily apply 
 universally to afl'usions, come to mean to dip, to dye, to 
 color, to stain, to soak, intoxicate. 
 
 50. Hugrino, Avater, sprinkle, means to wet, moisten, 
 wash. 
 
 51. Moluno, primarily to sprinkle (Stephanus), means to 
 stain, to pollute, to defile. 
 
 52. Passow : Ballo — embaUo, to cast (or strike), to be- 
 
 "^' 'Efj.6p£xo), iinmadefacio, immergo . . inspersa, per/undo, item mergo. 
 t Submers7is, cited by Stephanus. 
 X Ba(j)EV(;. 
 
 ^''EvSevu, that is to say, e/j-daiTTO), E/j,6pi;;(u. Passow gives endcuo as 
 bammati, i. e. bapto. 
 
PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 193 
 
 sprinkle oneself, to pour, pour out, sprinkle, to besprinkle 
 oneself with bath-water/' ^^ This word applies to washing 
 where it is louo, to wash, take a bath. See fully under the 
 chapter on Wash. 
 
 53. Kludzo.^ The primary meaning of kludzo is be- 
 dash, sprinkle. The ancient glosses (lexicons) have '^ peri- 
 kludzo, sprinkle, perfuse." j Buddseus (the lexicographer, 
 not the later ecclesiastic writer) has it peri-hlusmati, sprin- 
 kled. § Galen, the native Greek lexicographer, born a.d. 
 130, renders it by "affusion," "infusion" constantly, and 
 our word clyster is from it. Stephens renders it in the same 
 way. Passow, the master critic in Greek, has ^^ kludzo, 
 w^ash, splash (or bedash), dabble, bedash, wet, wash, purifv 
 or cleanse," etc. Stokius : "Kludzo, wash, cleanse, wasii 
 (or bedew, sprinkle)."^ Groves : "Peri-kludzo, to wash all 
 round or all over, dash water, sprinkle over." Liddell & 
 Scott: "To wash, dash, ... to wash off, drench, to put 
 water into the ears, and so cleanse them." So Passow. 
 A. Campbell quotes from Aristotle, the most learned Greek 
 and accurate in words who ever wrote, where this word is 
 interchanged with baptidzo, both rendered " overflowed," 
 the preposition kata being joined to kludzo, as often occurs, 
 as well as peri, and the same kata is often joined to bap- 
 tidzo in the classics. || Here is a Avord that primarily 
 means to splash or bedash with water, sprinkle, inject 
 water, that is the "equivalent for baptidzo.'' Yet this 
 
 * Xp6a ?MVTpdig, sich mit bade-wasser bespringen. 
 
 t KAii^w, irepiKlvi^o. 
 
 XAspergo, perfundo. H. Stephens's Thesaurus : Subvoce. 
 
 ^Aspergine (X, 127 Thesaurus, H. Stephens). 
 
 ^Eluo^ ahluo, lavo. 
 
 I Chris. Baptism, page 130: "Are not overflowed {me baptizesthai), 
 but at full tide are ovei-flowed {katakluzesthai) ; which word {katakliidzo) 
 is here used as an equivalent for baptizesthai^ Just so exactly, and in 
 classic Greek, too, where they contend it does always mean immerse. 
 18 
 
194 BAPTISM. 
 
 word comes to mean not only to wash^ cleanse, infuse, 
 overflow, but to immerse, submerse. Stephanus renders 
 it to "imbrue, overflow, bury, submerge." Buddaeus does 
 the same. Stokius renders also katahludzo, to bury, sub- 
 merge.* Could a fact be more perfectly demonstrated 
 than this, that words primarily applying to aifusion come 
 to mean wash, whelm, cover, immerse? 
 
 54. Baled — bakda. One more example we produce 
 from the Hebrew and Arabic — bcdal, which has the same 
 root (bed) as the Hebrew word for baptize {tabal), and is 
 the word that is used in the Arabic Bible to translate 
 bapto and embapto, dip, " dip in," in Luke xvi, 24, " That 
 he may dip" (embapto). John xiii, 26, "I shall have dip- 
 ped." But what is the primary meaning of this word, 
 and what other meanings develop therefrom? 
 
 (1) Frey tag's Arabic lexicon defines it, ^'To moisten, 
 and especially to Avater or soften by sprinkling or lightly 
 pouring the water." f 
 
 (2) Castell, '' To moisten and especially to water or soften 
 by sprinkling or lightly (gently) pouring the water. J 
 
 (3) Gesenius, " To sprinkle, water, make wet by affusion 
 of water, sprinkle." § 
 
 (4) Schindler : BaJal, to sprinkle, to moisten, to wet, to 
 
 ,iip.ii 
 
 Here is a word that primarily and habitually means to 
 sprinkle where it is a very light sprinkling of water. Yet 
 it is the Avord used to translate bapto and embapto. 
 
 '•■ Obruo, submergo. Stephanus : Imhruo, inundo, obruo, submergo. 
 
 t Freytag Arab. Lex, : Madrficit et spec, rigavit, maceravit ve asperso 
 aid leviter offuso humore. 
 
 tCastell: Same, word for word, as Freytag. 
 
 §Gesenius's Thesaurus: '^Z^, perjadit. Arabic, rigavit, offuso hu- 
 more inadefecit, conspersit, etc, 
 
 II Rigiivii, nuidf-Jicit, intinxit. 
 
PHILOLOGY, OR SCIENCE OF LAXGUAGE. 195 
 
 III this list of words, as in nearly all other matters, our 
 own humble researches alone brought out these facts, no 
 one ever having taken up this matter, so all-important to 
 this question. In this list of over fifty words, all the 
 words for baptism in the Bible and older versions, such as 
 tabaly tzeva, and gasala, amad, amaday secho, bapto, and bap- 
 tidzo, have been left out because they are the words in 
 question, though legitimately they, from the facts exhib- 
 ited, really belong to the list. 
 
 The following facts, then, are elicited and settled, viz: 
 
 1. Wash is not derived from dip or immerse. 
 
 2. A great number of words in various languages, pri- 
 marily meaning to sprinkle, to pour, come to mean to 
 wash, cleanse, purify, to overflow, overwhelm, immerse, 
 submerse. 
 
 3. That immerse is in almost all cases, if not in all, a 
 derived meaning, not a primary one in any case. 
 
 4. That numbers of words primarily meaning to mois- 
 ten, where it is {'' affuso leveter '^j with dew, drops of water, a 
 gentle affusion, sprinkling, come to mean to wash, cleanse, 
 overflow, overwhelm, depress, burden, immerse, submerse. 
 
 5. That w^ords primarily meaning, and often meaning, 
 to sprinkle, moisten, wet, where it was a very light affu- 
 sion of liquid or water, come to mean to stain, to paint, 
 color, dye, wash, cleanse, intoxicate, soak, make drunk, 
 dip, immerse, submerse — covering perfectly the classic 
 meanings of bapto and baptidzo. 
 
 6. That words primarily meaning to agitate or effer- 
 vesce, from which often is derived violence, come to mean 
 to sprinkle, from the violence of the fermenting or effer- 
 vescing, scattering drops in all directions, staining them, 
 hence to stain, dye, color; thence dye by dipping, to dip, 
 immerse. 
 
196 BAPTISM. 
 
 7. Tliat words meaning to press, press down, press in, 
 press together (the same word often has all these meanings) 
 come to mean to sprinkle, from the juice or liquid burst- 
 ing out of the juicy objects, as grapes, fruit generally, sat- 
 urated materials, juicy vegetables, etc.; to pour, to color, 
 to immerse, to submerse, from being pressed when resting 
 on a yielding substance, as water, etc. 
 
 8. It is demonstrated to an absolute certainty that it is 
 not merely the natural law, but the only law or habit of 
 language, that when a word has such meanings as intox- 
 icate, wash, overflow, overwhelm, not to say sprinkle, pour, 
 and dip, immerse, it begins with sprinkle or its equiva- 
 lent, and proceeds to develop till it comes to mean im- 
 merse, never reversing that rule in any instance in all the 
 Semitic and Aryan tongues. Hence — 
 
 9. Not only is the boasted law of immersionists utterly 
 destroyed, the great philological principles on which they 
 boasted their readiness or ability to rest every thing on it, 
 but sprinkling is established as the primary meaning of 
 hapto and baptidzo beyond the possibility of a doubt, and 
 by the same rule, of tabal, amad, and the rest. 
 
 We see also the peculiarity of word-making and deri- 
 vation. A word may mean to break open, to rupture, 
 that thence comes to mean pour, sprinkle, overflow, wash, 
 immerse. Thus, to rupture a vessel, eifect a break in it, 
 water may gush out, pour, or be sprinkled, as the rupture 
 is large or small. A blood-vessel may be ruptured, and 
 sprinkle and stain, soil objects. A dam or great body of 
 water break the levee or bank and overflow, overwhelm 
 completely and wash off all before it, drown the living. 
 
 To press an object may cause its liquid or water or the 
 juices in it to gush or burst out, sprinkle objects around. 
 Thence increased, a stream pours forth, as wine from the 
 
PHILOLOGY, OE SCIENCE OF LANGUAGE. 197 
 
 press. Hence sprinkle, stain, and pour come from press. 
 But pressing an object sinks (immerses) it in a yielding 
 element, as mud, water, etc. Hence press often comes to 
 mean to immerse. 
 
 To thrust down, cast down .water, blood, etc., sprinkles. 
 Hence words meaning to thrust, cast down, often apply to 
 rain, showers of rain. To thrust down heavy objects into 
 yielding elements, as water, results in immersing it. 
 
 These are examples of the developing of meanings to 
 words. In the face of these facts how infinitely vain and 
 utterly destitute of science are all those rules so much 
 relied on by immersionists ! 
 
 Two words may have primarily the same meaning, yet 
 apply to different objects, consequently take on entirely 
 opposite meanings. This occurs constantly. 
 
 The old philologists relied on arbitrary rules, took 
 dogmatic views, and bent philology to those views; and 
 hence the abyss of darkness and world of confusion in 
 Avhich they left this subject. They would assume a word 
 to be the same with another in a kindred dialect; as amadj 
 to stand, in Hebrew, and amad, to wash, sprinkle, in 
 Syriac, Arabic, because spelt alike, though wholly un- 
 like in meaning. Nay, Gesenius runs stark mad, and 
 finds as much support or more in the remotest Aryan 
 branches if a word be spelt with not a radical in com- 
 mon if they sound remotely alike ! His carelessness may 
 be seen, as well as A. Clarke and others too numerous to 
 note, in assuming the Arabic naza, to leap, etc., to be the 
 root of the Hebrew nazah, to sprinkle. Whereas the 
 Arabic is nazaeh, sprinkle ; and still stronger in ^thiopic 
 natzach, to sprinkle. The philologist has to keep in view 
 constantly the fact that in Semitic oftener far than Indo- 
 European tongues T {z) interchanges with *;>* (tz), both 
 
198 BAPTISM, 
 
 iiiterchange with L* (t), C (s), r (sh), then with n (^/i), while 
 - (6), C (/:>/?), interchange, as well as other letters. He can 
 not trace root-meanings without observing these and many 
 other facts. There may be a word having one or more 
 meanings fixed and settled. The corresponding word in 
 Arabic, ^thiopic, or Syriac may be changed in spelling 
 by these rules, and take on many meanings not found in 
 the Hebrew word, yet the same or kindred meaning will 
 crop out, showing the root identity. Hence the science 
 of philology is at once one of the most interesting, im- 
 proving, and useful studies to man. 
 
BAPTIDZO — WASH. 199 
 
 CHAPTER XVI. 
 
 B APTiDzo — Wash. 
 
 While all admit that baptldzo generally occurs in the 
 New Testament and Apocrypha in the sense of wash, 
 cleanse, it never so occurs in the classics. Dr. Conant, 
 out of some two thousand years of literature, could not 
 find a place where it meant wash. On the contrary, as 
 Schleusner says, though stating that the word in Greek 
 writers means "immerse, merse in wat^r," "yet in this 
 sense it never occurs in the New Testament." So does 
 Stokius, who urges that it applied to washing, cleansing 
 where it was effected "by sprinkling the water,'^ "hence 
 transferred to the solemn rite of baptism."* 
 
 Another point. Emersion, rising out of the water, is 
 never implied in baptldzo. Immersion does not involve 
 or imply emersion. To the extent that baptidzo, in later 
 Greek, where at times it occurs for a total immersion, at 
 times for a partial sinking, immersed objects, so far as the 
 force of the word goes, it leaves them immersed. Wherever 
 it sinks, completely immerses, a living being, it perishes. In 
 every instance in Dr. Conant's long list of Greek citations, 
 and he erroneously professes to exhaust the use of the 
 word, in not an instance does the word fail to leave the 
 object immersed, or submersed, in or under the element 
 into or under which the object was mersed. How could 
 wash, cleanse, or purify, philologically come from such a 
 * See chapter on Lexicons, where these lexicons are cited. 
 
200 BAPTISM. 
 
 use? On the contrary, every entire immersion in water 
 in all cases given resulted in death. Hence baptldzo in 
 the classics often means to drown. If the objects immersed 
 by baptidzo were dead — inanimate — decay, ruin, or destruc- 
 tion ensued. No washing resulted or purification. Not ,' 
 only does this rule the classics out of the question, there- i 
 fore, but it amazes us that men of learning should have 
 failed to examine into the world of facts which languages 
 present here ; and even Dr. Dale, so voluminous on this 
 subject, while professing to find new light, bases his struct- 
 ure as to philology upon the groundless position that 
 wash is derived from immerse! He and those he follows 
 liave immerse to get wash, wash to get purify, purify to 
 get sprinkle, sprinkle to get baptism ; yet if the universe 
 depended on it he could not find a word that primarily 
 and properly meant to immerse that ever came to mean 
 to wash, to purify, to cleanse. On the contrary, as shown 
 in all languages, a cloud of witnesses arise to show that 
 words primarily meaning to sprinkle, to pour, to moisten, 
 bedew, etc. come to mean to wash, wet, soak, whelm, over- 
 whehn, dip, immerse. The truth is completely vindica- 
 ted — -its principles absolutely perfect. To pour or sprin- 
 kle tlie liquid is to wet, moisten. If a coloring element, 
 it stains, colors. Pouring water on objects tends to wash, 
 cleanse. In many places sprinkling water cleanses, washes. 
 Being purified, things are appropriated to new and better 
 purposes. We may Avash, dipping the object in water and 
 rubbing it; but a mere dip, unlike the friction of pouring, 
 does not wash. The dust-covered herbs, houses, trees, ' 
 fences, are all washed by the sprinkling and pouring rain. 
 Pouring may soak, saturate, drench, overwhelm, submerse. 
 The philology is perfect and we dismiss this point. 
 
 That the Jews washed by pouring and sprinkling mostly 
 
BAPTIDZO WASH. 201 
 
 is seen in the use of the great laver (Chapter VII) , and in 
 2 Kings iii, 11, "This is Elisha, that poured water on the 
 hands of Elijah," as well as from John ii, 6, where surely 
 they did not wash in the vessel, as, first, it was physically 
 impossible as to dipping the body, and second, it would 
 have ceremonially defiled the water (Num. xix, 21, 22; 
 Lev. X, 34; xv, 34-36; Lightfoot, Horte Heb. et Tal., 
 ii, 417); third, much less would our Savior have turned 
 water defiled by washing hands in it into wine to be used 
 as a drink. But we have the Jews' estimate of the 
 amount of water necessary for washing the hands, for it 
 is urged by some that Mark vii, 3, 4, demands us to un- 
 derstand that the hands simply were plunged in water 
 where the Greek is baptized. On washing hands among 
 the Jews we have the following in Jadaim (cap. 1, hoi. 1) : 
 "They allot a fourth part of a log for the washing of 
 one person's hands, it may be of two; half a log for 
 three or four ; a whole log for five or ten ; nay, to a hun- 
 dred; with this provision, saith Rabbi Jose, tliat the last 
 that washeth hath no less than a fourth part of a log 
 for himself" Lightfoot, Horse Heb. et Tab, ii, 254. 
 Now a log is five sixths of a pint (g) ; a fourth of five 
 sixths is five twenty-fourths or nearly one fifth {^) of a 
 pint. Who could immerse or submerge his two hands 
 in one fifth of a pint of water? Hence in Erubhin, folio 
 21, 2 : "It is stated of Rabbi Akibah that he was bound 
 in prison, and Rabbi Joshua ministered unto him as his 
 reader. He daily brought him water by measure [to 
 drink]. One day the keeper of the prison met him, and 
 said to him, ^Thou hast too much water today.' He 
 poured out half and gave him half When he came to 
 Rabbi Akibah he told him the whole matter. Rabbi 
 Akibah saith unto him, ^Give me some water to wash my 
 
202 BAPTISM. 
 
 hands/ The other saith unto him, ^ There is not enough 
 for thee to drink, and how, then, shouldst thou have any to 
 wash thy hands?' To whom he said, ^It is better that I 
 should die [tliat is, by thirst] than that I should transgress 
 the mind of my colleagues.' '' That they did at times par- 
 tially dip the hands or one of them, no one would question. 
 It depended on the water, the vessel, and circumstances. 
 This shows absolutely that they never depended on dip or 
 immerse for washing. See also John xiii, where the Savior 
 washed the disciples' feet, and Luke vii, 38, 44, where 
 the woman washed Christ's feet with her tears. The 
 learned Pococke renders the passage " put into the water," 
 sprinkle the hands with water.^^ Leigh, Lightfoot, Cas- 
 tell, Buxtorf, etc. show the same to be true. 
 
 ••* Manus aqua perfiidit (Nat. Miscellan., chap, ix, p. 388 ; Gale's Ke- 
 flec, Let. iv, Wall, ii, p. 96). 
 
BAPTIDZO IN THE HOUSE OF ITS FEIE:N'DS, 203 
 
 CHAPTER XVII. 
 
 Baptidzo in the House of its Friends — The Con- 
 cord OF this Discord. 
 
 It Is certainly interesting to see how the learned ini- 
 mersionists conflict with each other when stating so em- 
 phatically their fundamental principles and the results of 
 their critical researches; and still more so to notice their 
 self-conflicting statements and infinite departures from the 
 true laws and science of language. 
 
 Mr. Ingham (Hand-book of Baptism^ p. 26) says, ^' The 
 Greek verb baptidzo signifies to immerse, and ought to be 
 so rendered in our translation/^ etc. ^^By immersion we 
 mean [what! has immersion now to be defined also?] an 
 entire covering or a complete surrounding with some ele- 
 ment.^' Here the latest distinguished author, Avith Car- 
 son, Conant, Campbell, Fraser all before him — Cox and 
 Morell before him — refutes Carson, rejects Gale, and ruins 
 all former canons of immersion. Halley differs. Ingham 
 next refutes Carson on ^'putting into'' the element as be- 
 ing implied in baptidzo; while such men as Fuller, Mell 
 of Georgia, and others go down before the broad sweep of 
 his tremendous battle-ax. He quotes Dr. Halley to prove 
 that "baptize is to make one thing to be in another by 
 dipping, by immersing, by burying, by covering [what 
 modes!!] by superfusion, or by whatever mode effected,'' 
 etc. (page 27). 
 
204 BAPTISM. 
 
 Here the strongest writer by odds that has appeared in 
 Europe on the side of immersion as late as 1866 declares, 
 first, that dipping, immersing, burying, covering, pouring 
 are all so many and different modes of baptism — so it re- 
 sults in ^^ complete surrounding,'^ "entire covering ''; sec- 
 ond, that baptism may be accomplished by superfusion — 
 pouring upon; nay, by ^'whatever mode effected"; third, 
 is there any dip, or sink, or plunge in superfusion ? Surely 
 dipping is not pouring upon. Yet says the great Dr. Gale 
 (London, 1711, p. 9), "We can not believe that it is so 
 doubtful in Scripture, as many pretend, whether dipping 
 only be baptism. ... I'll begin with the words ftdTzrc^of 
 and l^d-Tto \baptidzo and hapto], for they are synonymous" 
 (Reflections on Wall, ii, p. 60, Letter iii, ed. 1862). Here 
 Dr. Gale urges that only dipping is baptism. Burying is 
 not dipping. Covering a thing is not dipping. If pour- 
 ing water on an object is dipping it, we did not know it. 
 A thing may be dipped and not covered or buried. This 
 Dr. Gale freely admits. He says, "The word does not 
 always necessarily imply a total immersion or dipping 
 [italics his] the whole thing spoken of all over, which I 
 readily allow; but, then, sir, we should remember it is not 
 from any thing limiting the sense of 8d7ZTt^o) \haptidzo\ 
 but from something limiting the extent of the action in 
 the subject" (Reflections on Wall, Letter iv, p. 9, vol. 2, 
 etc., by Dr. Gale). 
 
 This is racy — is brilliant. First, haptidzo, he admits, 
 does not "necessarily imply a total immersion." It does 
 not imply "dipping the whole thing spoken of all over." 
 That is, if a man is baptized, it does not " necessarily im- 
 ply" that he is immersed totally or "dipped all over." If 
 but a part, nay, a small part of him, were dipped or im- 
 mersed, the whole man is baptized. This surrenders the 
 
BAPTIDZO IX THE HOUSE OF ITS FRIENDS. 205 
 
 whole question. It becomes rich when he adds that ^' it is 
 not from any thing limiting the sense of baptidzo, but from 
 something limiting the extent of the action on the sub- 
 ject/' Exactly so. Hence when the ^^ action on the sub- 
 ject '^ is limited to a sprinkling, a "superfusion/^ it is not 
 because the word does not at times apply to " total immer- 
 sion/' but because something " limits the extent of the 
 action" from being an immersion or dipping at all, and 
 Greek applies baptize to such cases of limited action. 
 
 The plain English of the statement of Dr. Gale is this: 
 When the administrator simply sprinkles or pours water 
 on the subject baptidzo applies to it clearly enough, but it 
 is not because of any thing ^Mimiting the sense of bap- 
 tidzo, but from something limiting [tlie administrator] the 
 extent of the action on the subject." We subscribe to 
 this without reservation. And because baptidzo is and 
 was so limited in its action, hence it does not necessarily 
 imply dipping or immersion. 
 
 Dr. Gale innocently prattles on, saying that though a 
 thing be "not dipped all over," etc., yet it does not 
 "follow that the word in that place does not signify to 
 dip;" and "I believe Mr. Wall will allow his pen is dipped 
 in the ink, though it is not daubed all over or totally im- 
 mersed. . . . What is true of any one part may be said 
 of the whole complexly, though not of every part of the 
 whole separately." ^'' Then wlien we pour water on a can- 
 didate for baptism, that part is covered with water. When 
 he is sprinkled the water covers the parts on which it falls. 
 If only the forehead is dipped, what is said or " is true of 
 any one part may be said of the whole complexly" — so 
 the man is dipped. Only a part is covered when water is 
 poured ; but what is true of a part may be said of the 
 ■■•■Reflections on Wall, vol. il, pp. 90, 01, Ijet. iv. 
 
206 BAPTISM. 
 
 whole complexly — so the man is covered. According to 
 this most learned of all the old immersion writers, every 
 one who is sprinkled or has water poured on him is bap- 
 tized, and it was not an immersion or total dipping, for 
 the " extent of the action ^^ was limited to that partial dip — 
 i. e. only a part was covered. Nor does it differ as to the 
 mode of covering, for you can do this as well ^' by super- 
 fusion" or ^^by pouring," Drs. Morell and Cox tell us. 
 And to cover a part is to baptize the whole man. This is 
 Baptist logic and argument. 
 
 Dr. R. Fuller, a Baptist,* says, *^It (baptidzo) signifies 
 to immerse, and has no other meaning." Yet in the same 
 book he translates baptidzo by ^^sink" twelve times out of 
 twenty-two instances, twice by plunge, once " dip," once 
 ''bury," once "drowned" (p. 48), three times by sub- 
 merge, three times only by immerse. In less than a page 
 (pp. 47, 48) he renders it "sink" seven times consecu- 
 tively. In another place (p. 17) he renders it "sink" five 
 times in less than half a small page. Here — 
 
 (1) He gives us an average of eleven against one 
 against immerse. 
 
 (2) He contradicts Gale, Cox, Ingham, Halley. 
 
 (3) He contradicts himself; for to sink is not to dip. 
 Is sink the same as plunge? Is dip equivalent to drown? 
 Is drown or sink the same as the plunge he administers to 
 a subject in baptizing him? 
 
 Against Ingham, Halley, and Fuller, Cox lets us know 
 that " The idea of dipping is in every instance conveyed, 
 and no less so by all the current uses of the terms" bapto 
 and baptidzo. Verily, there is trouble in the camp, if 
 Dr. Conant,t who devoted more pains and expended more 
 
 -Third ed., Charleston, S. C, 1854, p. 25, 33-37. 
 
 tConant's book on classic use has baptidzo only from pages 1 to 72. 
 
BAPTIDZO IN THE HOUSE OF ITS FRIENDS. 207 
 
 labor on this subject than all imniersionists together for 
 the last hundred years, out of sixty-three consecutive cases 
 could render it immerse only ten times, but " whelm ^^ and 
 " overwhelm '' fifty-three times ; while A. Campbell in but 
 two lines over half a page of a small volume renders 
 it '^overwhelm'' ten times, twice in same space '^over- 
 flowed/^ and out of thirty-four cases to prove its proper 
 meaning only renders it immerse three times — i. e. over 
 ten against one. Yet another defender of the faith tells 
 us, "The idea of dipping is in every instance'*! Is dip 
 the same as whelm ? Is it the same as overflow ? Is it 
 the same as sink? They are just the reverse. Yet Cox 
 tucks about and admits a man may be immersed, covered 
 by " superfusion,'' which contradicts all he has said in 
 favor of his theory. 
 
 To make it worse Dr. Morell* says that usually it 
 means ''dip.'' "But it appears quite evident that the 
 Avord has the sense of covering by superfusion [i. e. by 
 pouring upon]. This is admitted by Dr. Cox. Thus far 
 we surrender the question of immersion with Dr. Cox." 
 Drs. Morell and Cox sustain Ingham and destroy Drs. 
 Fuller, Gale, Mell, and A. Campbell. All this perfectly 
 sustains the position that primarily aff'usion was the import 
 of baptiae, even were Cox and Morell correct in detail. 
 
 After that it is always compounded with strengthening prepositions; 
 therefore it does not apply at all, hut is rather strong proof of its not 
 I'cing as he represents in many cases. But in the cases hetween 1 to 
 72 it occurs ahout one hundred and forty-one times. In these he ren- 
 ders it dip seven times — i. e. seven against one hundred and thirtj'-four, 
 i. e. his own texts have one hundred and thirty-four against seven of 
 his practice! It is only thirty-five times immerse against one hundred 
 and six against. That is, he puts it one hundred and six against thirty- 
 five for his rendering. Could an enemy more perfectly destroy their 
 position than this ? 
 
 -Edinhurgh, 1848, p. 167. 
 
208 BAPTISM. 
 
 But against all these Baptist doctors Dr. Booth* 
 swoops down like an eagle from an unpropitious sky, or 
 like a furious wind that threatened to unmoor all the 
 vessels that ply on the watery grave and sweep them far 
 up on dry land as unworthy of a place on the " deep/' f 
 He says, "The verb baptize, in this dispute, denotes 
 an action required by divine law. . . . What is that 
 action? Is it immersion, or pouring, or sprinkling ?'' 
 "A single specific enacting term/' " Baptize is a specific 
 term.'' " The English expression dip is a specific term." 
 But alas for this "specific action." It is "whelmed" by 
 Cox, Conant, and Morell ; " overwhelmed " by its advo- 
 cate A. Campbell; Ingham, Conant, etc., "submerged," 
 "sunk," "drowned;" its advocates " superfused," "soaked;" 
 its highest points "overflowed;" its best advocates 
 "drenched," "soaked," in their fruitless endeavors to 
 save it. Desperation seizing them, they are now "intox- 
 i(;ated," "made drunk" with draughts of Quixotic reme- 
 dies; "soused," "put under," "'engulfed" in the house 
 of its friends. While "undergoing" all these trials A. 
 Campbell, George Campbell, and Conant make it " un- 
 dergo " a contradiction of all this, and " endure " still 
 another weight in the New Testament, until criticism is 
 exhausted, consistency is wrecked, the immersion theory 
 " perishes," and is ready to be " administered " I upon 
 forever. 
 
 * London, 1799, pp. 265, 280, 286. A. Campbell takes the same posi- 
 tion in his debate with Dr. Rice, and in his book on Christian Baptism, 
 that it is specific as to action — dip. 
 
 t Immersionists often urge that the word is allied with " deep." 
 
 |A11 these words in quotation-marks are actual renderings of this 
 "specific," "simple" word by immersion authors of highest note, and 
 almost every one of them given it by A. Campbell and Conant in their 
 various works, versions, etc. "We omit the "wash" in A. Campbell's 
 revision, because he tells us it was an oversight. 
 
BAPTIDZO IN THE HOUSE OF ITS FRIENDS. 209 
 
 Prof. Mell^ of Georgia, insists that '^ no passage in any 
 Greek writings up to and immediately after the time of 
 Christ can be found containing these words — baj^tidzo, 
 baptisma, baptismos — where they must be translated by any 
 other English word than dip or immerse'^ (Baptism, pp. 
 16, 17). ^'They express the action of immersion, and 
 nothing else'' (p. 16). They " mean immersion, and nothinr/ 
 else'' (p. 15). Italics his. Fortunately for Prof. Mell he, 
 unlike the rest, appends here no proof-texts from classic 
 Greek, else unmistakably we should find in his text-illus- 
 trations, as we did in all the rest of their writers, the 
 clear, immediate, and overwhelming refutations of his bold 
 assertion in his own proofs. Certain as fate would have 
 followed such renderings of baptidzo as "sink,'' " whelm," 
 "soak," "overwhelm," "plunge," "drown," "submerge," 
 etc., and perhaps even baptism by "superfusion."* 
 
 Dr. Carson, the most popular author the Baptists have 
 had of late years, and professedly learned, says — for each 
 one seems determined and bent on "my position" — "My 
 position is that it always signifies to dip; never expressing 
 any thing but mode. Now as I have all the lexicographers 
 and commentators against me in this opinion, it will be 
 
 * Since examining the book in later chapters, lo ! wo find he is worse 
 than we predicted! In three pages of his small book (38, 39, 40) Mel! 
 translates haptidzo by 1. ''To lay,'' ''laid under water"; 2. "Sink' 
 (sunk) five times out of ten texts " ; 3. "Ruined " ; 4. " Dip " ; 5. " Im- 
 merse"; 6. "Steeped or soaked in wine"; 7. "Imbued"; 8. "Pressed 
 doicn." He gives the English of immerse as sink here very correctly 
 several times, and renders the same word in one sentence by two and 
 three words, thus, " Who was sunJc^ or immersed, or pressed down by the 
 weight of debts heaped upon him." Page 28 he says, " In Hebrews 
 ix, 10, the translators render the word baptismos correctly xoashiyig — 
 ' which stood only in . . . divers washings' " Here we have nine dif- 
 ferent renderings out of eleven texts ! ! We have lay, rni7i, press down, 
 soak. Apply these definitions to baptism in the New Testament — I in- 
 deed "lay " you; he shall "ruin'' you with the Holy Ghost, etc. 
 14 
 
210 BAPTISM; 
 
 necessary to say a word or two with regard to the autlior- 
 ity of lexicons. . . . The meaning of a word must be de- 
 termined by the actual inspection of the passages in whieli 
 it occurs, as often as any one chooses to dispute the judg- 
 ment of the lexicographers/^ 
 
 It always signifies "to dip/^ then, says r>r. C. If so, 
 then it never means to immerse, sink, nor to whehn, 
 drown, intoxicate, etc., nor "cover by superfusion/' But 
 his learned brother. Dr. Cox, says, "A person may indeed 
 be immersed by pouring [i. e. sink, plunge by pouring ! !], 
 but immersion is the being plunged into water or (the 
 being) overwhelmed by it. Were the water to ascend from 
 the earth it would still be baptism were the person wholly 
 covered by it^' (p. 46). 
 
 Where is the " never expressing any thing but mode ^' 
 here? Where is the dip? Where is the plunge? Where 
 is the sink, i. e. immerse? To "dip^^ is to put an object 
 either partly or wholly into an element, so that it touches 
 it at least, and at once withdraw it. Plunge does not im- 
 ply withdrawal at all, never provides for it, and implies 
 more or less force and rapidity in execution. Immerse 
 implies not withdrawal at all. Dip does in all these au- 
 thors, as they do not use it in derived and remoter senses, 
 as ships, boats, dipping water, etc. 
 
 BAPTISTS IX HARMONY. 
 
 Now with "all the commentators and lexicographers 
 against" "his position,'^ Carson insists that baptidzo means 
 to " put into." Conant says it is to " put into — under." 
 Ingham says it means to "put into." In Leviticus it 
 {bapto) is rendered "put into" (pp. 31-32). He renders it 
 " put into " ten times (pp. 27-29). Nay, indorses the idea of 
 
BAPTIDZO IN THE HOUSE OF ITS FRIENDS. 211 
 
 ^' comins; into the condition of beino- under water.'^ Now, 
 first, to "put into/' which Conant, Ingham, Carson, A. 
 Campbell, and others say is the exact import or force 
 of baptidzo, is not necessarily '^to dip,'' "plunge," or 
 'Mmmerse.'^ You can "put into" without either of these 
 actions. Nay, second, the word pour in Greek as well as 
 in Latin both means to "put into" and "to mix" often. 
 "Pat water into a basin "=^" pour" it into it. This word, 
 that means to " put into," is translated by Passow, Wahl, 
 and others by to "sprinkle," "besprinkle" over and 
 again. Ed. Robinson^s Greek Lexicon renders ballo "put 
 or pour" several times. How ruinous to immersionists 
 are their favorite words. No word exactly suits them. 
 They give us immerse. They have to turn round and tell 
 us what that means, define it in detail and by most oppo- 
 site words. To "surround completely;" that won't do. 
 The same writer in the same line tells us it is an "entire 
 covering." Yea, it is to "put into" — it is to dip. But 
 each of these words or expressions are widely different. 
 In Exodus xxx, 18, I read, "Put (i/./elcqj ekcheeis — pour) 
 water therein." Dr. Gale says twice that ^'baptidzo'' sig- 
 nifies only to dip or put into" (pp. 69, 74). As Christ and 
 Moses use a word for "put into" that often means to 
 sprinkle, to ponr (cheo and ballo), and if "put into" is the 
 meaning of bapto and baptidzo, it is crushing to immersion 
 and very satisfactory to us. Conant says (Baptizein, p. 
 89), "It means simply to put into or under water (or other 
 substance"), etc. A. Campbell (Debate with Rice, p. 126), 
 "Put himself under the water." Dr. Gale says baptidzo 
 signifies nothing "but to dip or put under or into." "Dip 
 or put into" (Reflections on Wall, 2, chap, iii, pp. 64, 
 96). 
 
212 BAPTISM. 
 
 A TOUCH, A FEW DROPS WILL DO. 
 
 Luke V, 38 : " New wine must be put into new bot- 
 tles." Ttiere is the precious word that defines immersion, 
 that defines baptidzo in immersion writers. Yet this same 
 word is rendered (Matt, xxvi, 12), " She hath poured this 
 ointment," etc. See also Matthew ix, 17, where it occurs 
 also. This is one of the words Hinton, the Baptist, puts 
 for pour. It seems to us that Dr. Gale is as hard pressed 
 as was my friend Dr. W. T. Brents, of Tennessee, at 
 Franklin, in debate, 1873, when, being pressed on dip as 
 used in the version of James, he said, " Could I wield 
 the power I could dip an elephant in a spoonful of 
 blood." Hear the learned doctor: " For if the word (bap- 
 tidzo) does but signify to dip I ask no more. Let it relate 
 to the whole body or a part of it only; either way I gain 
 my point" (ii, 110). He quotes Matthew xxvi, 23, on baji- 
 to, " he that dippeth," "And all the use he (Wall) makes 
 of it is only to observe the word does not here mean the 
 dipping of the whole hand. But this is nothing to the 
 purpose; for the question is not about the whole or a 
 part of the subject, but whether the Greek word signifies 
 only to dip, or any thing else" (p. 112, ibid.). In a word, 
 Dr. Gale admits the word does not necessarily imply 
 envelopment, covering, burial, but if only the subject be 
 applied to the element, the most partial entrance by the 
 smallest part, end of the finger, end or point of the pen, 
 the whole is dipped ! He was too good a Hebrew scholar 
 as well as Greek not to know that at least from his own 
 standpoint every dip in the Bible, save one or two at 
 most, failed to be what immersionists require — they were 
 not complete immersions. 
 
ANCIEXT CHITICISMS — ERRORS. 213 
 
 CHAPTER XVIII. 
 
 Ancient Criticisms — Errors. 
 
 If immersionists have been in utter confusion to find 
 adequate words to express their conception of baptism, 
 Avhich surely should close tlieir mouths against other 
 parties about translating the word, they are no less con- 
 founded as to the original or primary meaning of haptidzo. 
 Not only they, but those who have assumed immerse as 
 the primary meaning have occupied a position alike un- 
 true and uncandid, while the more candid have been 
 driven about without sail or rudder. 
 
 1. Beza, a favorite author with all immersionists be- 
 cause not understood (for, as will in due time appear, he 
 taught that even John the Baptist poured the water on 
 tlie people in baptism — effundo), says, " Bap-Kzi'^a) (haptidzo) 
 diifers from do^mi (dmiai), in that dunai means to sink 
 deeply (submergere)^' (Annot. Matt. iii). 
 
 2. Casaubon, a name much paraded indeed, says, ^' This 
 was the rite of baptizing, that persons were plunged into 
 the water ; which the very word baptizein (baptize) suffi- 
 ciently declares [it declares nothing of the kind, and 
 Conant and others admit it implies no particular element, 
 applies to any material]; which, as it does not signify 
 dunein (that is, a specific word for immerse), to sink to tlie 
 bottom and perish, so doubtless it is not epipolazeinj to 
 swim on the surface. For these three words are of dif- 
 ferent significations" (Annot. on Matt, iii, Ingham, 90). 
 
214 BAPTISM. 
 
 3. Terretinus, Vossius, Witsius, and Suicer all follow 
 this almost verbatim, and the rest of the old school follow 
 them. Pasor and other old authors follow with the same 
 assertion about dunai. See Pasor\s Lexicon on baptidzo. 
 
 Now, first, these authors use the very Greek word that 
 they themselves render by mergere in every case, '^ sub " 
 added, and dunai, one of the words for immerse; and its 
 force is destroyed by putting It into actual English, sink, 
 and retaining a Latin word, immerse, for baptidzo. Second, 
 dunai {endunai and katadunai) is the very word used by 
 the Greeks, used by the Greek fathers in nearly every 
 case when they wish to say immerse. When they defined 
 that the canon meant immerse for baptism, this is the 
 word they used both in its verbal and substantive form.* 
 Conant gives this case, ^' Three immersions in one bap- 
 tism," as it is in the Greek.f He does all he can to 
 conceal the force of it by rendering immerse "sink" every 
 time, and baptism by immerse. That is, he renders the 
 real word for immerse (kataduo) by sink, the true English 
 word, and baptism by the Latin of sink. Conant quotes, 
 ''Then when we emerge (ana-dunai)/^ etc. "For that 
 the child (kata-dusai) sinks down (is immersed) thrice in 
 the font and comes up again (ana-dusai)/^ is emerged, 
 properly. How could the child come up again? J Where 
 
 ••■ The apostolic canons, sixth century a.d., say, " If a bishop or pres- 
 byter shall not perform thi^ee imynersions {bapti»maia) for one initiation, 
 but one baptism," etc. This is the only place in all their literature where 
 baptisma stands for immersion, and it is plural — baptismata. But Zo- 
 ni?ras, the Greek, explained this canon thus : " The canon here calls the 
 three baptisms th^ee immersions — kntaduseis " — Kara and dvvai, to sink, 
 be immersed. 
 
 t Tcf rphg Karadi.'aetc . . . h evi iSa-rlGjuari — tas treis kataduseis . . . 
 en heni baptisynati. Conant's Baptizein, pages 106, 108, 110, 117, 119, 
 133, full of examples of dvvac^ dunai, endunai, katadunai used for baptism, 
 anadunai for emergence. % Baptizein fp. 108). 
 
ANCIENT CRITICISMS — EKRORS. 215 
 
 the Greek reads '^the threefold immersion and emersion/^ 
 Conant has it ^^the threefold sinking down and coming 
 up/^* In most of the cases the parties were infants 
 under a year old. How came they up? 
 
 Heliodorus, about a.d. 390: ^'And being already bap- 
 tized [i. e. overwhelmed by the waves, as the ship was in 
 a storm], and wanting little of being immersed — kata- 
 dunai — some of the pirates at first attempted to leave and 
 get aboard of their own bark/^ f Notice here, in this 
 quotation cited by Conant and baptidzomenon, rendered by 
 him '^ becoming immerged and wanting little of sinking, 
 some of the pirates attempted to leave," etc., first, the 
 ship was baptized by the storm dashing the waves upon it. 
 It was " baptized " but not ^^ immersed ; " second, if 
 '* already immerged '^ how could the pirates be calculating, 
 some whether to desert it or not and others not even yet 
 resolved to desert it? third, notice that baptize here 
 is contrasted with immersion. See also Dr. Gale on 
 dunein (Wall, vol. 2). 
 
 How now can dunai mean to perish, necessarily, when 
 not only it, but when strengthened by kata to give it ad- 
 ditional force, still so far from implying such an immer- 
 sion as necessarily takes to the bottom or causes to perish, 
 it is the very word used to express the mode of the bap- 
 tism which we call immersion and trine-immersion? One 
 more case out of Conant, p. 106, ^^ For to be baptized, 
 even immersed {kataduesthai),X then to emerge," etc. 
 Again, '^For as he who is immersed in the waters (en- 
 dunon), and baptized," etc. § 
 
 ^'TcEirissce Icatadusai kai anadusai. Here is dunai with kata and ana 
 — to express immersion and emersion. 
 
 t "11(^77 Se l^aTTTii^o/uivcjv koI Karadvvai, etc. (See Conant, page 18). ; 
 
 } Yet Dr. Graves repeats this blunder (Debate, p. 289). 
 
 ^ Baptizein, . 104. 'Evdvvuv h tolgl vdaai Kal (3aTTiC6uevog — here we 
 have en dunoi. to be mersed in — immers'i^d. 
 
216 BAPTISM. 
 
 A. Campbell quotes Basil, A. D. 360: ''By three immer- 
 sions the great mystery of baptism is accomplished."^^ 
 He adds several more where both endunal and hatadunai 
 express his idea of an immersion. Con ant therefore says 
 of baptidzo (p. 89), "It means simply to put into or under 
 water (or other substance), without determining whether 
 the object immersed sinks to the bottom or floats in the 
 liquid, or is immediately taken out." He adds on same 
 page that the word baptidzo is also used where a living 
 being is put under water for the purpose of drowning, and 
 of course is left to perish in the immersing element." No 
 one will dispute this. Ingham, Carson, Cox, and A. Camp- 
 bell give many illustrations of it, and A. Campbell there- 
 fore renders it to "droAvn." Here, then, we see — 
 
 4. That these writers demonstrate to us that baptidzo is 
 used in classic Greek frequently in the very sense which 
 they attach to dunai — sink that they may perish, while 
 dunai is used to express the force of baptidzo when it is 
 used for an immersion where the party does not perish. 
 
 5. Hence this old theory, being crushed by Conant and 
 his associates, and utterly exploded and abandoned by 
 them, it follow\s that the criticisms, views, and arguments 
 that Pasor, Terretinus, Casaubon, Sucier, Beza, Vossius, 
 Witsius, and others built upon such crudities, must fall so 
 far as their support goes. On this false conceit, and the 
 assumption denied by all immersionists that Jewish prose- 
 lyte baptism was before Christ and followed by the apos- 
 tles, the old immersionists of the fifteenth, sixteenth, and 
 seventeenth centuries built all their arguments for immer- 
 sion. The other was the assumption of the oneness of 
 classic and Biblical Greek, though they, despite their 
 theory, were forced to see baptidzo was an exception. 
 
 * En trisi tais katadusesi (Chris. Baptism, p. 182). 
 
ANCIENT CEITICISMS — ERRORS. 217 
 
 They differ equally in selecting the word to express 
 the primary meaning of hapto and baptidzo. Pasor, a 
 favorite with immersionists, gives bapto as ^' derived from 
 bao, Hebrew, ba/^ ^^ whence is bapto'' equivalent^ he says, 
 to the Latin mitto. Schleusner, in his Septuagint Lexicon, 
 derives it from Hebrew bo, in Hiphil, heba."^ He then 
 gets thrust, lead to, pour together, moisten or bedew. But 
 all this all critics, and all iramersionists especially, will 
 utterly repudiate. Gazes derives it from ballo, which not 
 only implies to throw but to sprinkle and pour. Still less 
 unscientific is the present disposition of immersionists to 
 discover the primary meaning of words, especially of this 
 word. Their plan is to find what is in a given age or 
 period, a most common or prevailing use of a word, or 
 meaning attached, and then accept that as proof absolute 
 of its primary meaning. Yet there is not a Baptist scholar 
 that does not know such a rule to be utterly false and 
 unscientific. On the contrary, ninety-nine words out of 
 every hundred in all Indo-European and Semitic lan- 
 guages are used most constantly in figurative senses and 
 not in the primary sense at all. This is so true that no 
 one will deny it, and is sufficiently explained in all scien- 
 tific works on the subject of philology. The truth is, there 
 are less than five hundred root-words in our language of 
 one hundred thousand words. But where, in what liter- 
 ature, and in what department of life will words most 
 perfectly hold or retain their primary meanings? 
 
 BAPTIDZO IX THE CLASSICS. 
 
 In medicine and theology words will most perfectly 
 retain their primitive meaning for reasons plain to every 
 
 ■^Pasor: BaTrrw, . . . derivatur a (Sdu pro quo j3atvo) et Heh. ^^ unde 
 est QaTTTO), etc. "Schlcusner — LXX Lex: (Sarrcj, . . . J^lb, in Hipli. 
 ^2^ adduc'or Lev. xi, £2, iynmiUafvr, machcds, confundo, pa.rjo, madeo " 
 
218 BAPTISM. 
 
 mind. In law they will stand the next best chance. It 
 is in the religious use of the word we may most naturally 
 seek for its primitive meaning. In medical Greek works 
 we may find the most proper aids to a correct understand- 
 ing of it. But right here we find that we are left almost 
 exclusively to religious use; for we have no medical work 
 coming down from remote times in Greek, Hippocrates 
 and Galen being the oldest, and the works of the former 
 interpolated. 
 
 That we may see how little help can be obtained from 
 classic Greek, let us note the following facts, which will 
 exclude it from any place in the investigation of the Bible 
 or New Testament use of this word: 
 
 Ingham, the Baptist, quotes Swarzius thus: ^''To bap- 
 tize, to immerse, to overwhelm, to dip.' To authenticate 
 this as the primary meaning of the term {baptidzo), he 
 (Swarzius) adduces the following authorities: Polybius, 
 iii, 72, etc., Dio, Porphyrins de Styrze, Diodorns Siculus, 
 Strabo, Josephus." Now this is a fair specimen of all 
 arguments to discover the primary meaning of baptidzo, 
 Stephanus, 1572, of whom Scapula, Pasor, Hedericus, 
 Schrevellius, Donnegan, etc. are mere abridgments, omit- 
 ting his authorities or proof-texts, gives Plutarch first, w^ho 
 died one hundred and forty years after the birth of Christ, 
 and brings in Plato about last; while Aristophanes, B.C. 
 450, and Pindar, B.C. 522, Aristotle, etc. are not quoted 
 Schleusner gives Diodorus the Sicilian, sixty to thirty 
 years before Christ, first, ^^of the overflowing {exundante) 
 of the Nile; next Strabo, who died about A.D. 25. AVahl, 
 Avho sought to improve lexicography with Schleusner, cites 
 Josephus first, who died A.D. 93; next Polybius, who died 
 about one hundred and twenty-five years before Christ. 
 Passo\y. quotes Plutarch first (see above), and Plato, the 
 
ANCIENT CRITICISMS — EERORS. 219 
 
 first prose-writer who uses the word, last, omitting, with 
 all the rest, Aristophanes and Pindar, the first Greeks who 
 are known to have used the word!! Liddell & Scott fol- 
 low suit, and Ed. Robinson cites Polybius first, Diodorus 
 Siculus, etc., and does not improve the matter an iota. 
 Conant cites Polybius first, Plutarch next. When our 
 immersionist friends get angry at the lexicographers and 
 "appeal to the ultimate authority" — the writers them- 
 selves— Drs. Conant, Carson, Gale, Pendleton, Ingham, 
 A. Campbell, et alii, and say every definition must be sus- 
 tained by a cited text, forgetting all that though in He- 
 brew and Syriac, taking Gesenius^s immerse and dip under, 
 i-'-'^', when there is no such Hebrew word at all, hence no 
 text cited, but only the Chaldee tzem; when they so con- 
 stantly appeal from the lexicons to the classics, we demand, 
 then, proof-texts for the primary meaning. To quote a 
 writer who was born long after the commission was given 
 to baptize, supposing classic Greek legitimate evidence, is 
 an infinite absurdity. To suppose that the above lexi- 
 cographers were discussing primitives and derivatives, yet 
 never classifying the relative claims of writers to accuracy 
 of style, nor their ages, no, nor their centuries, jumbling 
 all together — hotchpotching — is to accuse them of a stu- 
 pidity most disgraceful. They have not tried to trace tlie 
 difi'erence in the meanings of this word or its root, hapto, 
 as they occur in different ages. They give to both of them 
 very different and seemingly opposite meanings, as has 
 been seen, yet no scientific reason whatever. ''Dip'' is 
 not " immerse " or '' sink." '' Plunge " is not '' overflow." 
 ''Dip" is not "whelm" nor "overwhelm." "Sink" is 
 not " inundate." " Wash " is not "intoxicate" nor " make 
 drunk." "Sprinkle" and "pour" are not "drown." 
 Freund and all Latin lexicographers and all the philolo- 
 
220 BAPTISM. 
 
 gists of the age demand that we trace the word to its 
 earliest occurrence, find its meaning or meanings; then de- 
 scend, tracing every shade of meaning it took on, and why, 
 how; and thus by the "comparative philology" or scientific 
 processes we arrive at the perfect truth. We have never 
 seen a Greek lexicon that cited Pindar or Aristophanes on 
 baptidzo; no, not even Aristotle, Alcibiades, or Demos- 
 thenes. They have done far more justice to the root 
 ftdTTTo), especially Stephanus. Pindar was born B.C. 522. 
 Between his birth and that of the average authors cited 
 by the standard lexicons on baptidzo five hundred years 
 intervene! Is this looking after the primary meaning? 
 Between Aristophanes, B. c. 450, and the ages of the au- 
 thorities cited, over four hundred years pour their power- 
 ful and all-changing tide. Not only do words change 
 wonderfully in such periods of time, but nations rise and 
 totter to their fall, empires come upon the vast plains of 
 history, flash their meteoric splendors across the darkness 
 of ages, are torn, rent, decay, and fall. Cities are founded, 
 rise to renown, and proclaim themselves eternal ; but decay 
 eats away their vitals and change after change ensues, till 
 only a miserable and degenerate rabble is left to tell the 
 tale of their departed greatness, or a fisherman's net and 
 hut alone are left as a sad memorial of the work of time. 
 While thus empires, nations, kingdoms, states, cities, and 
 their languages have all been changed and modified by 
 time, yet this one word baptidzo is assumed by immer- 
 sionists to have been a diamond of such essence, a pearl of 
 such water, as to resist the powers that wrought change 
 upon every thing on earth and made deep engravings on 
 the brow of old earth itself, yet left this word unaffected. 
 Sublime conceit ! Masterly and irresistible faith ! 
 
A^X'IENT CRITICISMS — ERRORS. 221 
 
 IS THE FOOT THE HEAD? 
 
 To see how unscientific has been the methods of the 
 old philologists we have only to name the fact that Aratus, 
 seven hundred years later than Homer, is the first author- 
 ity cited by Stephanus on hapto. He is four hundred 
 years later than ^schylus, two hundred years later than 
 Aristophanes, who uses the word unusually often for one 
 not writing on nature or art. But of all works the most 
 astonishing here is the distinguished Dr. Dale's. He pro- 
 fesses to adopt a most careful system of investigating. 
 
 While he deserves the greatest credit — as far as we have 
 seen his works, two first volumes — for research, his rule 
 or canon of interpretation is so destitute of all science 
 that it is simply preposterous. Seeking the primary mean- 
 ing of the words in dispute, he never classifies authors, 
 disregards time, the early or late date of authors ; but all 
 are thrown together without order or method, and the 
 most arbitrary principles adopted. In classic Greek here 
 is his order. 
 
 1. Baptidzo. Accidentally Aristotle is put first. But 
 in the same table, exerting more influence though, Archias, 
 ninety years before Christ, comes next, and as of equal 
 influence Julian, a. d. fourth century, comes next! Lu- 
 cian A.D. 120 follows. Orpheus, apocryphal and of un- 
 known late date, comes next. Plutarch A. d. 90, the 
 next! In his next chapter, p. 254, it is thus: Achilles 
 Tatius, at the close of the fifth or dawn of the sixth cen- 
 tury after Christ, quoted three times consecutively ; next 
 an apocryphal ^sop, writer and date unknown ; next Alex. 
 
222 BAPTISM, 
 
 Aphrod., about A. D. 200, three citations! In the next 
 chapter he begins with Achilles Tatius, five hundred years 
 after Christ, giving four citations, p. 283. Next, on spe- 
 cific influence, p. 317, he begins with Achilles Tatius 
 again! The next cited was born about two hundred and 
 thirty years after Christ, while for secondary use he cites 
 Plato who lived in the fifth century before Christ. Though 
 Plato uses the word in a metaphorical sense that is based 
 on a literal sense, and philological science owes it to 
 science to use the fossil remains of antiquity to resurrect 
 the living forms of the literal language. 
 
 On bapto he begins Avith Theocritus, eight hundred 
 years later than Homer. His fourth author is in the third 
 century after Christ; his next in the fourth; his next in 
 the ninth century after Christ ! ! That is to say, Dr. Dale, 
 with Carson, Gale, and the rest, quote a w^ord used eight- 
 een hundred years later than its first occurrences to find 
 its primary meaning. If that is philology or science then 
 Livingstone could have discovered the head of the Nile 
 without going up stream, but to the mouth of the river, 
 and Jefferson should have sent Lewis and Clarke to the 
 region of the jetties, instead of the mountains and Indian- 
 covered hills of the northwest, to discover the primal 
 source of the Mississippi. 
 
 We think Dr. Dale altogether wrong in his assuming — 
 
 (1) That ^'permanent influence" was dreamed of by 
 those who used baptidzo, 
 
 (2) If ^' interposition^^ implied such an idea, so did pon- 
 ticlzo, huthidzo, dunai, kataporitidzo, kataduo. Homer, 
 Herodotus, Thucydides, and the best as well as oldest 
 Greek literature we have, use the last word where later 
 Iron-age Greek — the only kind Dr. Dale cites or can cite 
 for his immerse — uses baptidzo of vessels sinking, etc. 
 
ANCIENT CRITICISMS — ERROES. 223 
 
 (3) A thousand words may imply in their effect perma- 
 nent influence, including kill, murder, sin ; as, to cut off 
 a chicken's head is permanent influence. In all this it is 
 simply assuming what no Greek ever dreamed of in the 
 use of that or any other word of mere action or mode, 
 however varied that action. 
 
 (4) But really the earliest use we have of tlie word did 
 not contemplate permanent any thing, nor particular or 
 specified duration. It is used for abuse, aspersion, as 
 hatantleo is in Greek. It is used for becoming drunk, for 
 confnsing with questions, and for overflowing land with 
 tide-water, and these are its earliest recorded uses. In 
 not one of these is permanent or unlimited influence 
 thought of by the writer. 
 
 (5) His treatment rests on the supposition, really, that 
 words originate with learned, deeply-metaphysical schol- 
 ars, with these abstruse and remote meanings implied. 
 Nothing is further from the facts. Word-building is a 
 vastly different process. 
 
 2. Pindar, the Greek poet, is the first writer in the 
 world yet found who uses it, and he but once, and in a 
 metaphorical sense, pointing to the use of the word 
 for a great while before liis day. Describing ^'the impo- 
 tent malice '^ and abuse of his enemies who aspersed his 
 fair fame he said, "For, as when the rest of the net is 
 toiling deep in the sea, I am as a cork above the net, un- 
 baptized by [the waves] of the sea " — ad'a-rjoro? drxi . . 
 aA,aa^. Scholiast, " salis undis.'^ That is, I am as sere 
 unharmed by your raging malice and abusive epithets ix>. 
 the cork is above the stormy and foaming billows. The 
 waves of malice — i. e. your abusive epithets — fall harm- 
 lessly upon me, do not overwhelm me. The Greeks, the 
 Latins, and other nations constantly use the word sprinkle 
 
224 BAPTISM. 
 
 and pour for this very idea, but they never use immerse. 
 So we in English say, "aspersion," "asperse" one's char- 
 acter, "foul aspersion," for slander, abuse. Shakspeare 
 uses "bespatter" often for the same, as well as Bunyan, 
 "bespatter a man,"* complaining of their abuses and 
 defamations. Taylor, Baptist historian, says, "To vindi- 
 cate them from those aspersions." f Shakspeare, "I was 
 never so bethumped witli words," etc. "These haughty 
 words bespatter me like roaring cannon-shot." Often in 
 Arabic a word meaning eloquent means to pour, sprinkle. 
 The first occurrence, then, is no case of immersion nor 
 dipping, but the application of the baptizing element to 
 the subject coming upon him, and he as unharmed by it 
 as the cork on the waves of the sea; every effort of the 
 wave to fall upon, drench, or overwhelm him fails. 
 
 3. Aristophanes, the poet, 450 years before Christ, 
 uses it once. He uses it in a metaphorical sense thus, 
 "For he is praised," says he, "because he baptized (^Sd-ir- 
 ruTvj, ehaptisen) the stewards," etc. It is here used in the 
 sense of bespatter with epithets or words, abuse, traduce, 
 especially ridicule. There is no immersion or dipping 
 here. To sprinkle any one with epithets or with praise 
 was a common expression. The Greeks had this as a com- 
 mon saying, "To sprinkle any one with song," "sprinkle 
 any one with eulogies." % In the above cases the stronger 
 form is used — pour ridicule upon, overwhelm with words. 
 
 4. Plato, the great philosopher, born b. c. 429, is the 
 first prose-writer that uses the word. It occurs three 
 times in his writings, rendered "overwhelm" every time 
 by Conant, A. Campbell, Gale, and all other parties we 
 
 * Banyan's Differences about Baptism, complete works, page 842. 
 
 t Hist. Baptisttjj page 330, by Benedict. 
 
 X 'Vaiveiv, Tiva vjuvcj—palveiv h?Myia(; nva; (Pindar, viii, 81, etc.). 
 
ANCIENT CRITICISMS — ERRORS. 225 
 
 suppose. It is metaphorically used each time. "Speak- 
 ing of young Cleinias, confounded with the sophistical 
 questions and subtilties of the professional disputants, he 
 says, ^And I, perceiving that the youth was overwhelmed 
 — baptized — wishing to give him a respite.^" Questions 
 asked confusing the boy is not putting the boy into the 
 questions, but the questions to him. The boy is not 
 poured on the questions, but the questions are poured on 
 to him so fast that he is confused, overwhelmed by 
 them. By the way, whence that word confuse?* Alex- 
 ander was " overwhelmed — baptized — with wine.'' 
 
 Plato again says, "For I myself am one of those who 
 yesterday were overwhelmed — baptized,'' alluding to the 
 drinking of wine.f Conant says, "In this use the Greek 
 word corresponds to the English drench" (p. 70). No 
 dip, no immerse; yet — 
 
 5. Alcibiades, B.C. 400, w4io comes next, was a poet, and 
 uses it metaphorically, as have all who as yet used it. In 
 an epigram on the comic poet Eupolis, occasioned by the 
 offensive allusions in a play by him called Baptce — those 
 who stained, colored — metaphorically, those who bespat- 
 tered with billingsgate — " You besprinkled (fid-nreq, baptes) 
 me in your plays [i. e. with words of abuse] ; but I will 
 destroy thee with streams more bitter, baptizing thee with 
 waves of the sea." J I will pour upon you a torrent of 
 invective; I will pour bitterest streams of abuse ujion 
 you; as with the waves of a sea I will overwhelm you. 
 Later by centuries Plutarch speaks of one " baptized by 
 [excessive labors] falling upon him — oTrepgaUuufft, huper- 
 ballousi." He drew the comparison from "a moderate 
 
 * Enthydermus, chap, vii ; Conant, p. 66. 
 t Conant, pp. 69, 70. 
 t See the Greek, Conant, p. 29. 
 15 
 
22G BAPTISM. 
 
 amount of water/^ nourishing plants; but too much choked. 
 There is no dip, no immerse yet; but invariably the appli- 
 cation of the baptizing element to the subjec.t. 
 
 BAPTIDZO — PRIMARY MEANING. 
 
 A striking instance of the twofold fact that a word 
 may primarily mean to sprinkle or pour and then to over- 
 whelm, flood, inundate, and also be used to express a tor- 
 rent of words poured upon one, aspersion, abuse, is found 
 in Athseneus: '^ You seem to me, O guests, to be strangely 
 flooded — ■/.arr^'^rXrfffOo.t, kataentlaesthai, overwhelmed with 
 vehement words, while also waiting to be overwhelmed — 
 ftsSaTtrcaOat, hehaptlsthai , baptized — with undiluted wine.'^ 
 
 Here the parties are ^^overwhelmed" w^th vehement 
 words, overwhelmed with wine. The two words are used 
 in the same sense. Dr. Conant renders kataentlaesthai 
 here ^' flooded " — a strong phrase for overwhelm. But this 
 word used in the same sense as haptidzo liere primarily 
 applies to affusion, means generally to sprinkle, to pour. 
 Passow, Pape, Rost, Palm, Stephens all render it generally 
 by sprinkle and pour.'-^ Dunbar renders it " To pour upon, 
 to bathe with water, ... to soothe with eloquence, to 
 overwhelm with or pour out ridicule upon one." Liddell 
 & Scott: ''To pour upon or over; hence, metaphorically, 
 to pour a flood of words over one, to bathe, to steep,, 
 foment." 
 
 Here is a word that primarily applies to affusion by 
 agreement of all authorities that is used by the Greeks in 
 the same sense with haptidzo — -just as it is often used. In 
 Aristophanes, Demosthenes, and in Plutarch in its noun 
 
 *Pape: Dariibergiessenr^rschutten, etc. Passow: Same, and darub- 
 erausgies>cn, fihersohnttpn, lihorbaiifen. 
 
ANCIENT CRITICISMS — ERRORS. 227 
 
 form, pluno, to rain, pour, sprinkle, then to wash, means 
 "to abuse, revile, reproach."* 
 
 6. Demosthenes, born B.C. 385, next uses it once, if he 
 be the author of the speech attributed to him. He uses it 
 greatly strengthened by the preposition dta, dia, thus: 
 " Not the speakers — public declaimers — for they knew how 
 to baptize with him — Philip '^ — dta^a-rc^sffOat — diabaptid- 
 zesthai — toutcd, with this man. Here it "is used metaphor- 
 ically, and the sense is, for these know how to match him 
 in foul language,'' says Dr. Conant, p. 77; but when he 
 makes it "souse" it is ridiculous. That figure so common 
 to the Greek language, as well as the English, of bespatter- 
 ing, aspersing with foul words, and when gifted in speech, 
 "pour out a torrent of words;" common to the Latin, 
 very, and to the Arabic, alone makes sense and is true. 
 In a past chapter the reader found many cases of this in 
 the foot-notes, where words for sprinkle and pour coming 
 to mean overwhelm, etc. were given. Consult Graves- 
 Ditzler Debate, pp. 397-8, et seq. 
 
 7. Aristotle, born B.C. 384, uses it once only in all 
 his writings. He is the first writer known to use it liter- 
 ally. All as yet used it metaphorically; he uses it "in 
 the literal, physical sense," as Conant would say. Being 
 the most learned and scientific and accurate Greek who 
 ever lived, having the most complete and accurate scholar- 
 ship of all Greeks and careful in his use of terms, and the 
 first Ave have that uses it literally, we must notice closely 
 his use of it, and thereby get all the light we can. He 
 says, "They say that the Phoenicians who inhabit the so- 
 called Gadera, sailing four days outside of the Pillars of 
 Hercules with an east wind, come to certain places full of 
 rushes and sea-w^eed, which, when it is ebb-tide, are not 
 
 •■•■See Pickering's Revised Greek Lexicon, 1840. etc. 
 
228 BAPTISM. 
 
 overflowed — irq (ia-riZeffOat^ mae haptidzesthai, but at full tide 
 are overflowed — xaxaAluZtaOai^ hataldudzesthai.^^ * Notice — 
 
 1. The element comes upon the baptized object. The 
 land is not dipped — it does not penetrate into the water, 
 nor sink into it, is not immersed, but overflowed by the 
 rushing water. 
 
 2. It is equivalent to the word xaraxXoXio^ hatahludzo. 
 Aristotle, instead of using either word twice so closely 
 for the same fact, uses baptidzo for it first, then hataUudzo. 
 Kataldudzo is compounded of the preposition hata, to 
 strengthen the verb, and khidzo. See Chapter XIII, p. 138. 
 Its primary meaning is to bedash, sprinkle, infuse water. 
 The word clyster is the noun of the verb, often occurring 
 in Greek. The ancient lexicographers have peri-kludzo 
 for sprinkle, besprinkle, bedash with water. Yet it comes 
 to apply to a more copious use of it, but always with 
 the water, the active agent, not passive — not penetrated 
 by the object, but falling upon the object. It often means 
 to wash also. Hence the greatest of Greek scholars in the 
 golden age of Grecian intellect, using baptidzo interchange- 
 ably with such a word, crushes the immersion theory to 
 atoms, and shows that a word primarily meaning to sprin- 
 kle or bedash with water is the equivalent of baptidzo. 
 It was centuries after this that Theophylact, the Greek, 
 used the same word, kataldudzo, to express the baptism of 
 the Holy Spirit. See Conant, Ex. 199, p. 113. 
 
 3. Baptidzo does mean, often means, ^^to overflow.'' 
 A. Campbell, Prof. Ripley (Baptist), Swartz, M. Stu- 
 art render it overflow. Conant renders its equivalent 
 " overflow '' in the same line, but falsely renders baptidzo, 
 
 * Aristotle, De Mirabil. Auscultat, 136; Conant, 3. Dr. Conant 
 shamefully translates the one immerse, the other, for exactly the same 
 thing, overflow. A. Campbell was more candid. 
 
AKCIENT CEITICISMS — EREOKS. 229 
 
 Yet (p. 88), summing up, he renders it " overflows/^ allud- 
 ing to this case. But no word either primarily meaning 
 immerse — if such a word exists — or that properly means 
 immerse, with no other primary meaning implying affu- 
 sion, can be found that means to " overflow." The three 
 Hebrew words for immerse, tabha, kaphas, shakha; the 
 six or eight Arabic words elsewhere given ; Persic, Syriac, 
 ^thiopic ; mergo, im-, de-, and sub-mergoy in Latin ; the 
 Greek buthidzOj kataduo, pontidzo, dupto (dip), katapon- 
 tidzo, immerse, never mean to overflow ; neither the Ger- 
 man sinken, taucheUy ein, and undertauchen. As "over- 
 flow" can not come from dip or immerse, yet does come 
 to be a derived meaning and a liteeal meaning of bap- 
 tidzoj immerse or dip can not be the primary meaning of 
 baptidzo. 
 
 We have now traced every occurrence of baptidzo from 
 its appearance in literature by Pindar, five hundred and 
 twenty-two years before Christ, to Aristotle — covering one 
 hundred and thirty-eight years — dating the birth of each. 
 We are giving the facts first ; the philology is yet to ap- 
 pear more fully. Note — 
 
 (1) For one hundred and thirty-eight years it occurs 
 only in a metaphorical sense. 
 
 (2) During all these years it always implied affusion, 
 application of the baptizing element, never implying the 
 application or sinking of the object into the element. 
 
 (3) The first time in which it occurs in a literal sense 
 it is the application of the water to the object baptized, by 
 the greatest of all Greek scholars. 
 
 (4) It is used by him as equivalent to a word that pri- 
 marily means to bedash or sprinkle with water, as when 
 it is sprinkled suddenly or forcibly in the face or on any 
 part of the body. That is its most common use. 
 
230 BAPTISM. 
 
 4. The next occLirrence is in Eubuliis, a Greek comic 
 writer, about B.C. 380. It is difficult to determine in what 
 sense he uses it: '^Who now the fourth day is baptized, 
 leading the famished life of a Avretched mullet,'' a notedly 
 hungry, always empty fish, according to fable. Whether 
 the person was for the fourth day clinging to some part 
 of the wrecked vessel, starving for three days, bap- 
 tized often by the waves dashing upon him, we can not 
 say unless we had more of "the fragment." It points 
 that way as far as it goes. There is but the one oc- 
 currence. 
 
 The quotation "falsely attributed to Heraclides Pon- 
 ticus'' in this century belongs to a much later date. See 
 Conant, p. 34. 
 
 5. Evenus of Paros* is the next, B.C. 250, Epigram: 
 " If [Bacchus] breathe strongly, it hinders love — i. e. if a 
 man is completely intoxicated, love's amours are defeated; 
 for he [Bacchus] baptizes with a sleep near to death.^f 
 "Here is the metaphorical sense of the word," says Stu- 
 art, who renders it "overwhelms." From Pindar to this 
 poet tw^o hundred and seventy-two years intervene, yet 
 haptidzo never yet occurs meaning to dip or immerse. 
 Polybius, born B.C. 203 or 205, comes next — a prose-writer. 
 From the times of Pindar to those of Polybius sum up 
 three hundred and seventeen to three hundred and nine- 
 teen years. During all these stormy and changy times 
 baptidzo never had been used for dip, for plunge, for im- 
 merse, but always points infallibly to affusion. 
 
 Baptidzo may have been in use hundreds of years 
 
 * Evenus, xv, in Jacob's Anthol., p. 99 ; M. Stuart, p. 61 ; Conant, 
 p. 58. 
 
 t Ban-Ti^ei 6' vttvc) — not, as nearly five hundred years later Clem. Alex, 
 has it, hg vttvov, into sleep. 
 
ANCIENT CRITICISMS ERKOES. 231 
 
 before we meet with it in the literature that has survived 
 the waste of ages, but in its earliest use as know^n to us 
 we have enough to show its primary meaning aside from 
 the facts brought out on hapto. Among its prevailing 
 classic meanings are intoxicate, overwhelm, overflow, pour 
 over or upon, of words, then the effects of wine, ques- 
 tions, water. We know that none of these meanings can 
 be derived from dip or immerse. That has been perfectly 
 tested. They are constantly in all languages derived 
 from words primarily meaning to sprinkle, to pour, to 
 moisten, bedew, etc. All the facts connected with bapto 
 point out the same results. 
 
232 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER XIX. 
 Classical Usage — Summary of Facts. 
 
 Immersionists hold that the prevailing meaning of a 
 Avord is its primary meaning, regarding not earlier occur- 
 rences at all, ignoring all the laws of science and word- 
 building, development of language. But is immerse — 
 English, sink — or dip the prevailing meaning of baptidzo 
 even in the classics ? We will test the matter by them- 
 selves. 
 
 1. T. J. Conant, D.D., renders baptidzo out of sixty- 
 three consecutive occurrences — 
 
 (1) ^^ Whelm'' forty-five times; '^overwhelm'' eight 
 times^fifty-three times; while in those sixty-three con- 
 secutive occurrences he does not render it dip, the thing 
 they do in baptism, once even, and "immerse" only ten 
 times! 
 
 (2) After p. 7e3, baptidzo is compounded with preposi- 
 tions and does not apply properly. All the cases of bap- 
 tidzo simply, then, are one hundred and forty-one, of 
 which only seven times does he render it dip ; i. e. one 
 hundred and thirty-four against seven in his favor. 
 
 (3) These seven cases are not correctly rendered. 
 
 (4) Out of the one hundred and forty-one times, it is 
 rendered by him immerse only thirty-five times, making 
 one hundred and six against thirty-five for immerse. 
 
 (5) These are partly false renderings, as Aristotle on 
 the "overflowing'' of the land, etc. 
 
CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 233 
 
 (6) Not one of them has the meaning; in not one of 
 the one hundred and forty-one cases does baptidzo describe 
 or apply to the action that constitutes their baptism. 
 
 (7) Conant renders baptidzo by fourteen diiferent words, 
 giving it fourteen definitions! Yet they say "there is 
 absolutely no word in the Greek language of more uni- 
 vocal sense than the Avord baptize" (Address by Dr. 
 Eaton, bound up in Conant's work). Surely this was 
 meant for a huge joke. 
 
 (8) He only finds thirty occurrences of the word before 
 the birth of Christ that he can date, allowing a margin 
 for that number. These he renders — 
 
 (9) One "dip'' out of the thirty; i. e. twenty-nine 
 against one for "dip.'' 
 
 (10) Only thirteen "immersions;" that is, seventeen 
 against thirteen. 
 
 (11) Several of these, as Aristotle's, are wrong, leaving 
 dip clear out, and immerse maimed forever. 
 
 2. Dr. Gale, the great Baptist of a former century, thus 
 renders it: "Dipped in" once; "dip," three times; "laid 
 under," once ; " over head and ears," once — a peculiar verb, 
 no doubt, very " univocal " ; " drowned," one time ; 
 " drowns and overwhelms," once ; " sink," ten times ; 
 " immerse," three ; i. e. eighteen against three for im- 
 merse ; eighteen against three for " dip," or twenty-one 
 versus one " dip in." 
 
 3. M. Stuart, when summing up for immerse, a Con- 
 gregationalist writing by request of Baptists, of forty-one 
 cases it is — 
 
 (1) One " dip," six " plunge," seven " sink," one " im- 
 merge," three " immerse," one " overflow," twenty-two 
 "overwhelm." That is — 
 
 (2) Forty against one " dip," or. 
 
234 BAPTISM. 
 
 (3) Thirty-eight against three immerse ! 
 
 (4) Twenty-three cases " overflow '^ and "overwhelm," 
 of application of the baptizing element to the object, 
 against one '^ dip," the word expressive of the baptism of 
 our opponents. What is the prevailing meaning? Is it 
 the primitive ? 
 
 4. Prof J. M. Pendleton, D.D,* out of twenty-two 
 occurrences renders it — 
 
 (1) Plunge, eight times; dip, one; sink, five; overflow, 
 one; immerse, two; overwhelm, five; i. e. 
 
 (2) Twenty against two for immerse — ten to one against 
 immerse ! 
 
 (3) Twenty-one against one for dip!! 
 
 (4) "Overflow" and "overwhelm," six times, pointing 
 to affusion, against one for " dip." Does the prevailing 
 meaning indicate the i)rimary? 
 
 5. A. Campbell shall be heard from. In Christian 
 Baptism, his greatest work, he renders baptidzo: 
 
 (1) Sink, ten times; immerse, three; overflow, one; 
 dip, not at all; "overwhelm," ten times; i. e. 
 
 (2) Twenty-one against three for immerse. 
 
 (3) Twenty-four against not one for " dip! " 
 
 (4) "Overflow" and "overwhelm" eleven times against 
 no dip — all pointing to afl'usion. 
 
 (5) He gives through his renderings, version, and quo- 
 tations introduced, leaving out the parts he does not like, 
 twenty different renderings to baptidzo. 
 
 Surely it is a simple word — " univocal." 
 
 CLASSICS — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 
 
 6. Ingham, later than Conant, in his large work, 
 Hand-book on Baptism, London, though he had A. Camp- 
 
 * " Why I am a Baptist," from pages 97 to 100. 
 
CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 235 
 
 bell, Carson, Gale, Conaiit, Booth, etc. before him, gives 
 us this result : Omitting the Bible and Apocrypha cases, 
 as being the ones in dispute to be determined — "sub- 
 merge," one; '^play the immersing match," one; i. e. 
 "dip," one. He renders it "overwhelm" fifty times out 
 of one hundred and sixty-nine cases. Here Ave have it 
 meaning "overwhelm" fifty times to dip once, and one 
 hundred and sixty-eight to one dip! "Immerse" is his 
 favorite rendering. "It always means to dip" — means 
 "nothing else" — yet means to dip only one time in all its 
 occurrences through fifteen hundred years! 
 
 7. Dr. Carson renders it "immerse" three times; 
 "sink," seven times; "plunge," two times; "dip," three 
 times; "baptize," fourteen times; "put into," one time; 
 "drown," one time — in all thirty-one proof-texts. Here 
 we have twenty-eight against three for " immerse." We 
 have twenty-eight against three for dip ; twenty-nine against 
 two for plunge. Yet it "always means to dip" ! 
 
 If I have counted accurately, the sum of all is four 
 hundred and fifty-seven against eighteen for dip ! By the 
 unanimous renderings of the great masters themselves we 
 have haptidzo meaning something else over twenty-five 
 times to every one time it means dip — over twenty -five 
 against one ! 
 
 With the facts from the classics and these renderings, 
 we are prepared to test the matter by the laws of language. 
 These renderings are far more valuable than the render- 
 ings of lexicons, because, first, these men, though far less 
 learned in Greek than the lexicographers, were far more 
 learned in the literature of this word. A lexicographer 
 can not afibrd to devote but a few moments to the study 
 of each word, all being equally important to him. But 
 these men devoted years to this one word ; second, they 
 
236 BAPTISM. 
 
 are its special friends. They have a theory to support, 
 and many of them a very restricted, and, as some think, 
 an intolerant, proscriptive theory, that unchurches millions 
 of the most pious of God's people, and they start out with 
 the assumption that bapiidzo in the classics describes the 
 exact action of their rite — that it always means to dip. 
 
 Dip always implies withdrawal to the extent of pene- 
 tration. Immerse is sink, sink in, with no withdrawal 
 implied. 
 
 1. We liave seen that all the earliest uses of baptidzo 
 were in support of aifusion. Yet in Pindar, Aristophanes, 
 Alcibiades, Evenus, poets all, it is applied to aspersing 
 people with abusive epithets, as well as in Demosthenes. 
 But nothing is more common to Greeks, Latins, He- 
 brews,* Arabs, Germans, Americans, and English than 
 this habit; and words meaning to pour, to sprinkle espe- 
 cially, are most common, while immerse is not so used at 
 all. Hence these facts establish sprinkle as the primary 
 meaning of baptidzo. 
 
 2. The Hebrew words for immerse, the Greek (often 
 repeated by us), hatadiio, etc., the Latin mergoj im-, de-, and 
 sub-mergo, never mean, are never employed for to abuse 
 or sprinkle, bespatter one with epithets or words ; hence 
 baptidzo could not have primarily meant immerse, merse, 
 or dip, since the above meanings can not be derived there- 
 from. 
 
 3. Baptidzo means, in the oldest of all prose-writers 
 known to employ it, Plato, to ^^ overwhelm," so rendered 
 by all immersion authors and by the lexicons, being used 
 metaphorically by Plato, born B.C. 429. But ^'over- 
 
 ••■See also Deuteronomy xxxii, 2: "My doctrine shall drop as the 
 rain, my speech shall distill as the dew, as the small rain upon the tender 
 herb, and as the showers upon the grass." 
 
CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 237 
 
 whelm" can not be derived from dip, as a proper word, or 
 immerse, sink. Philologically it is absurd. Baptidzo does 
 come to mean *'to overwhelm,'^ often. Overwlielm can 
 not come from dip; hence dip could not have been the 
 primary meaning of baptidzo; nor from immerse; hence it 
 could not have been the primary meaning of the word. 
 We never apply '^ dip " to a case effected by overwhelm- 
 ing. 
 
 4. Dr. Conant renders baptidzo "whelm'' forty-five 
 times between pages 43 and 72. But "whelm'' can not 
 be a meaning derived from dip, neither from immerse; 
 hence neither of those words expresses the original mean- 
 ing of baptidzo. 
 
 5. The earliest occurrence of baptidzo in a literal 
 sense is in Aristotle, and means literally " to overflow." 
 But " overflow" never is derived from a word that prima- 
 rily or properly means to dip, nor from immerse. Neither 
 dip nor immerse was the primary meaning of baptidzo, 
 
 6. Baptidzo often means to " intoxicate," " make 
 drunk." Dip and immerse do not mean to intoxicate, it 
 is never derived from such primaries; therefore they never 
 could have been primary meanings of baptidzo. Neither 
 immerse — in Hebrew, Arabic, Persic, ^thiopic, Syriac, 
 Greek, Latin, German, nor English, neither in tongues 
 Aryan nor Semitic — nor dip ever comes to mean to make 
 drunk. Mergo rarely applies to the effect of wine, to sink 
 under its effects. 
 
 7. Dip is urged by all immersionists as a leading mean- 
 ing of baptidzo. But dip never can be derived from im- 
 merse; they as wholes imply opposites in action. Hence, 
 if dip be a meaning, the word never could have primarily 
 meant immerse. 
 
 8. Immersionists, such as Drs. Gale, Ingham, Cox, 
 
238 BAPTISM. 
 
 Mell, Halley (and Conant gives many proofs), acknowl- 
 edge that bapiidzo and baptisma are used by Greeks where 
 the baptism is effected by " superfusion '^ — i.e. pouring 
 upon. But "dipping" can not be so accomplished, nor 
 can " superfusion " be derived from dip, much less from 
 immerse. Hence dip and immerse never were primary 
 meanings of baptldzo. 
 
 9. Baptkho means "to wash." All are agreed here.* 
 The immersionists all make it the effect of dipping in 
 water — that it is a figurative or derived meaning. But — 
 
 (1) Immerse never means to wash in any language on 
 earth. It is never a meaning by figure or by fact, if the 
 proper words for immerse in Greek, Latin, Hebrew, or 
 English. Mergo, immergo, demergOy submergo, the words 
 themselves, never mean wash. Neither of the six or 
 eiglit Arabic words given that properly and strictly 
 mean to immerse, means to wash. The same is true of 
 the GfYeok pontidzo^ diuiai, buthidzo, kata-pontidzo, kataduo, 
 all meaning definitely to immerse, to sink, sink in. The 
 English sink, the German slnken, eintauchen, underfauchen, 
 do not mean to wash, nor cleanse, no more than dip, 
 tunken, tauchen, and the Greek dupto, dip, kolumbao, dip, 
 dive, stand in the same list. 
 
 (2) Neither has immerse any necessary or philological 
 relation or necessary connection with wash, as things are 
 most generally washed in nature by the water coming in 
 contact with them, and by infinite odds mostly by sprink- 
 ling and pouring. Every leaf, herb, tree, spear of grass, 
 rock, hill, house, fence, all things in nature are constantly 
 washed, cleansed from soiling, defiling elements by the rain. 
 
 (3) Indeed immerse as often applies to things that de- 
 
 "■•• See proofs under Chapter VII on the Laver, and see Index — 
 Wash. 
 
CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 239 
 
 file, corrupt, soil, as to purifying elements. Things are 
 immersed in filth, mud, hog-styes, filthy pools, stencliy 
 vats, sinks of all kinds. 
 
 (4) Nay, merely dipping or immersing in clear water 
 does not necessarily Avash or cleanse, does not at all. 
 Merely dip a dirty garment in clear water and you will 
 make poor headway in washing it, especially by one single 
 dip. 
 
 10. Again J bajjtidzo meant wash two hundred and eighty- 
 three years before Christ, as 2 Kings v, 10, 14, shows. 
 It was interchanged with louo and its noun lutron, wash- 
 ing, cleansing, in the Apocrypha two hundred and thirty- 
 five years before Christ, we know, and most likely much 
 earlier. It was interchanged with kludzo, wash, besprinkle, 
 etc., in the Apocrypha likewise. But baptidzo never took 
 on the meaning of immerse till the middle of the second 
 century before Christ — about one hundred and fifty years 
 before Christ — in Poly bins, who was born two hundred 
 and three to two hundred and five years before Christ. 
 That was a rare meaning, though, and continued as a mi- 
 nority meaning, as the immersionist renderings show. No 
 lexicon gives immerse as a meaning of baptidzo supported 
 by an authority earlier than Polybius. Most of them cite 
 Plutarch, long after the birth of Christ, as the first, some 
 Diodorus Siculus, later than Polybius. We have seen 
 that Polybius, Plutarch, and Diodorus Siculus wrote after 
 the great breakdown and change in the Greek language 
 also. 
 
 Wash, therefore, antedates immerse as a meaning of 
 baptidzo from at least one hundred and twenty-five to one 
 hundred and fifty years, if not fully three hundred years. 
 Hence it is impossible that wash or cleanse should be de- 
 rived from immerse as a meaning of baptidzo. 
 
240 BAPTISM. 
 
 11. Again, baptidzo means to '^ overflow^' in Aristotle, 
 which was one hundred and seventy-nine years before it 
 came to mean "immerse.^' Hence immerse can not be an 
 early, not to say primary, meaning of baptidzo. 
 
 12. Of all the words properly meaning to immerse in 
 Hebrew, tahha, kaphash, shapo ; eight in Arabic extensively 
 used, gamara, gamasa, atta, etc. ; in Persic, ghuta; ^thiopic, 
 maah, maba; in Greek, buthidzo, kataduoj etc., etc.; dupto, 
 dip, immergo, etc. in Latin, none of these proper words for 
 immerse ever mean to abuse, slander, defame, simply be- 
 cause asperse, pour upon, are not in their primaries nor in 
 them any where. 
 
 13. While these facts infallibly prove that neither dip 
 nor immerse nor plunge was the primitive meaning of 
 baptidzo J they all point out sprinkling as that meaning. 
 In addition to these facts another great truth settles the 
 question : 
 
 All the meanings belonging or claimed to belong to 
 baptidzo in classic or New Testament and apocryphal 
 Greek do constantly belong to a great number of words in 
 Greek, Latin, Hebrew, Arabic, etc. that do by agreement 
 of all authorities belong to words that primarily mean to 
 sprinkle, to others that primarily mean to moisten where 
 it is effected by sprinkling, to bedew, to wet, to rain. On 
 the contrary, in no instance does a word in these languages 
 that properly means to immerse or primarily to sink, 
 plunge, or dip have the meanings that belong either in the 
 classics or New Testament and apocryphal Greek to 
 baj)tidzo. 
 
 14. In Chapters XII and XIII we have seen over fifty 
 words that illustrate this — words not used for baptism in 
 the Bible. They are in Latin, such as tlngOj from Greek 
 tengo (or tenggo, rsyya)), madeo, madefacio, perfundo, as- 
 
CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMAfARY OF FACTS. 241 
 
 pergOj taking on more or less the meanings of bapto and 
 leading ones of baptidzo; Greek deuo, brechoj kludzo, kat- 
 antleo; a host of Semitic words, many beginning with 
 sprinkle, mean to wet, cleanse, pour, wash, saturate, intox- 
 icate, dip, immerse. In no instance is the law reversed. 
 From sprinkle to immerse we saw the way was natural, 
 historic, constant. Words meaning to bedew, moisten 
 take on stronger meanings and come to mean soak, intox- 
 icate, saturate, dye, dip, immerse. Others primarily mean- 
 ing sprinkle come to mean to pour, applied to water, to 
 rain, which falling washes the millions of trees, shrubs, 
 all vegetable growths, fences, houses, of accumulated dust, 
 soot, excrescences that can be thus removed; hence to 
 wash. Pouring rains ^^ overflow,'^ cause to "overflow," 
 "inundate," "overwhelm." Overwhelming objects may 
 and often does cause them to sink — be immersed; hence 
 the next meaning is immerse, submerse. This we found 
 illustrated often. Overwhelming some objects causes them 
 "to dip," as a vessel often does; hence naturally comes 
 that meaning. 
 
 Under bapto we saw that from sprinkle comes stain. 
 We saw it abundantly in Chapter XIII. Thence we saw 
 that it comes to apply to coloring, dyeing in any way ; hence, 
 in the easiest and best way, by dipping into the fluid the 
 thing to be dyed. From dipping for color they learned 
 to let it remain in for some time, i. e. immerse. Hence, 
 sprinkle is demonstrated to be the primary meaning of 
 both words. 
 
 15. We saw that baptidzo in its earliest known occur- 
 rences applies to bespattering people with abusive epi- 
 thets — pouring a torrent of invectives. We know noth- 
 ing is more common than for people to say such a person 
 "poured a torrent of abuse upon me;" such a slander or 
 16 
 
242 BAPTISM. 
 
 report ^^ is a foul aspersion." We never saw it foul dip- 
 ping, foul immersion. Hence the primary use of the word 
 was for aspersion. Constantly, then — 
 
 16. Words meaning to sprinkle primarily, in great num- 
 bers, cover all meanings of baptidzo; words for immersion 
 never do ; hence it is absolutely certain that sprinkle was 
 the primary meaning of baptidzo, 
 
 17. Let it be remembered now how seldom baptidzo 
 represents "dip" in the house of its friends; how seldom 
 immerse ! That only in the later Greek it came to mean 
 immerse at all. That these authors — tlie two or three who 
 use it for immerse — lived from the middle of the second 
 century before Christ down in remote centuries from 
 those in which the apostles Avere educated; that it so 
 occurs in a foreign secular literature unknown to their 
 education, their early instruction ; that in their own lit- 
 erature it always meant wash, cleanse, used I'cligiously. 
 And had they followed classic usage, the prevailing and 
 earliest use of it was in the sense of affusion, and the most 
 renowned and learned Greeks never used it for either dip 
 or immerse, as seen by immersionists themselves, but in 
 the sense of aifusion. 
 
 18. In accordance with these facts, gathered from the 
 chosen fields of our opponents, we turn to still another 
 illustration, never noted by any writer any more than 
 were the preceding facts, viz: In the period B.C. 570, tzeva 
 (baptize in Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic) occurs for the 
 first time in history or literature (Dan. iv, 12, 20, 22, 
 30; V. 21). Nebuchadnezzar's body was baptized with the 
 dew from (apo) heaven, rendered (conspergatur) sprinkled 
 by Jerome as well as wet. See details under Versions. 
 Later by centuries this word, to sprinkle, means to wash 
 in the Targums. It nowhere occurs in Hebrew, notwith- 
 
CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 243 
 
 standing Gesenius assumes meanings for it for immerse 
 wlien there never was such a word in Hebrew so far as 
 literature goes ! ! Later still it came to apply to a partial 
 dip, and still kept up its meanings, wash and sprinkle, as 
 the Targums in Psalm vi, 7 ; the Syriac Luke vii, 38, 44; 
 Ezekiel xxii, demonstrated. Yet immersionists contend 
 it means nothing but immerse in the seventh century after 
 Christ, in the Arabic version.^ 
 
 19. Shato.pli {^'^%), already noticed, " a pouring rain,^' 
 ^' overflowing rain ;'^ first means " to gush, pour out ; ^^ 
 second, in Leviticus, fifteen hundred years before Christ, it 
 means to wash every time it occurs, applied to what the 
 New Testament writers call baptism ; third, later in the 
 Prophets, it is to wash, overflow, overwhelm, but never 
 immerse; fourth, later still, in the sense of overwhelm, 
 almost altogether; fifth, then later still, in the third 
 century after Christ, it means mainly to immerse, sub- 
 merse. See the latter use, Castelli Heptaglotton, sub. v. 
 ?:i:|^n*^t^ ill .«hiopic. 
 
 IS DIP IMMERSE? 
 
 Immersionists insist that dip is exactly synonymous 
 with immerse. Dr. Graves, late as 1876, rewriting his 
 speeches, Debate, 527, says, '^All lexicons give dip and to 
 immerse as synonymous terms.'^ Italics his. In reply we 
 say: 
 
 1. All English standards giving the real meaning and 
 early usage of the two words make a clear and perfect 
 distinction between them.* 
 
 "••• In Carrollton Debate, as written by Dr. Graves, he says tseva is 
 baptize in Syriac — dip. (See the full quotation on Versions.) 
 
 ■•=■ Webster, 1878, " Dip. 1. The action of dipping or plunging for a 
 moynent into a fluid." Again, he defines it "to put for a moment into 
 
244 BAPTISM. 
 
 2. All lexicons clearly bring out a marked difference by 
 
 (1) Defining words that have various meanings, as 
 moisten, wet, dip, immerse, by various Latin words — in- 
 tingo for dip, immergo for immerse. 
 
 (2) Words that mean strictly and always to immerse, 
 demerse, they always define by mergo, immergo^ de- and 
 suhmergo, never by intlngo, dip, much less by tingo. See 
 many examples already given. Where tabha, immerse, 
 e. g, is defined, Gesenius, Castell, Schindler, Hottinger, 
 Stokius, Leigh, all use immergo, immevsit, not one gives 
 tingo or intingo. No lexicon gives thigo or intingo for 
 kaphash, immerse, or for Arabic atta, ghuta, amasa, im- 
 merse, though they repeat the mersit, de-, and immevsit 
 over and again, sometimes fifteen and twenty times, giv- 
 ing examples. So of buthidzo, katapontidzo, kataduo, im- 
 merse. Nor do Kouma and Gazes, native Greek lexicog- 
 raphers, in defining these words use diqjto or hapto, dip. 
 
 3. Neither do Kouma and Gazes use dupio, hapto, in 
 Greek to define baptidzo, though they use buthidzo, im- 
 merse, sink. 
 
 4. Nor will this bold and popular assumption by im- 
 mersionists bear comparing with the words for immersion 
 in the Bible. A. Campbell, Conant, Wilkes, Graves, Gale, 
 Carson, etc. all render immerse into English by sink. In 
 Psalm Ixix, 2, in the Hebrew, it reads, "I immerse — sink 
 — in deep mire.'' Was he dipped in it? Psalm ix, 15, 
 reads in Hebrew and Greek, " The heathen are immersed 
 
 any liquid." Webster, 1871, gives the true meaning of dip, as used in 
 James's version, and those times — " to insert in a fluid, and withdraw 
 again" (Lev. iv, 6). He thus gives the meaning of immerse— "Im- 
 merse [Lat, immersus, etc.], immersed ; buried, hid, sunk [obs.]. 'Things 
 immerse in matter ' " (Bacon). Here is the true, literal force of immerse 
 — it had no other force till the loose style of Baptists introduced its pres- 
 ent uses which, of course, dictionaries have to follow. 
 
CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 245 
 
 —sunk down in the pit that they made." Were they simply 
 dipped in it? Exodus xv, 5, in Hebrew and Greek, reads, 
 " They immersed — sank — into the bottom as a stone." Did 
 they simply dip into the bottom, ^Svithdrawing" immedi- 
 ately? In verse 10 the same reads, "They immersed — 
 sank as lead in the mighty waters." Were they merely 
 dipped? In Matthew xviii, 6, the Greek reads, "It were 
 better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, 
 and that he were immersed in the depth of the sea." 
 Would dip do there ? 
 
 5. Let us put it dip where Dr. Graves and others ren- 
 der it immerse, sink. Example 39 in Conant, "And al- 
 ready becoming immerged (baptized) and wanting little of 
 sinking" — of a ship. Render it now, "And already be- 
 coming dipped and wanting little of dipping," etc. Ex- 
 ample 22, Debate, p. 237, of ships and the crew — "And 
 were submerged (baptized) along with their vessels." 
 Were the vessels that submerged merely dipped ? Exam- 
 ple 4, Debate, p. 207, "' Certain desert places . . . which, 
 when it is ebb-tide, are not baptizesthai — immersed, bap- 
 tized, but when it is flood-tide are overflowed." Were the 
 "desert places" dipped? Scores of examples could be 
 added. Let these serve as samples. 
 
 6. All ancient and all more modern versions act by the 
 same rule. They never render bapto^ e. g. by immerse, 
 etc. or submerse, but by tingo, intingo, aspergo in Latin, 
 and by corresponding words in all other versions. As 
 mergOy immergo are words so common in Latin, why in all 
 the Bible in so many versions did they not use them if 
 tingOy intingo were the same as mergo, etc. ? 
 
 Let us now examine the Semitic words that definitely 
 and strictly mean to immerse in current use, and notice 
 their original import as well. 
 
246 BAPTISM. 
 
 1. Gamasa^ in Hebrew means to burden; in Arabic to 
 hide, conceal, perplex, obscure, evade, hide; then, from 
 burden, to immerse, and currently has that meaning. 
 
 2. Gamara,-\ Arabic, to press, compress, yet constantly 
 it means to immerse, demerse, submerse. 
 
 3. Amatha, X Arabic, to be heavy ; then commonly to 
 demerse. 
 
 4. Dul, dala,% Arabic, to depress; then commonly to 
 immerse. 
 
 5. Ga}'a% (Hebrew, gur), to descend, depress, immerse. 
 
 6. J-^^a, II to oppress, press down; then, common, to 
 immerse, demerse. 
 
 7. Kaphashj^^ to press down, immerse. 
 
 8. Shakahyff shaqa, to depress, compress; then im- 
 merse, submerse, especially. 
 
 9. p^^], tabhcij Hebrew, Syriac, Arabic, all give "to 
 impress.'' Syriac, " primarily to impress.'' Buxtorf gives 
 "to press, impress or fix in, be immersed, demersed," etc. 
 From impress comes the meaning to cut or coin money. 
 Webster's Dictionary runs wild here after Gesenius's crude 
 method, but were his position regarded as sound it, too, 
 would add strength to our facts here; but we regard his 
 views here as unsound as to tap, tupto, strike, etc. 
 
 1. Notice, not one of these words gives dip, intingo, or 
 tingo, or wash, etc. as a meaning. 
 
 2. They show the true idea of immerse — sinking under 
 a pressure, not involving, like dip, immediate withdrawal. 
 
 TINGO. 
 
 As tingo figures in these discussions, we prefer to pre- 
 sent the leading facts in this connection that all may de- 
 
 *D^:? ti^or t.n?2r gbN-; ifTii? iroJ? *-*r£D ttrpt 
 
CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 247 
 
 termiiie for themselves. While immersionists have made 
 a most forced use of this word generally, Dr. Graves, in 
 his last three speeches on Mode, outHerods Herod in the 
 perverseness of his statements, though not a Avord of all 
 there said was said in the debate, but written down de- 
 liberately in his room in Memphis, Avith my manuscript 
 speeches violently usurped, and most dishonestly held in 
 violation of all the agreements of the parties publishing — 
 all being Baptists, in the same house with Dr. Graves. 
 Out of hundreds of cases of his daring assertions — they 
 refusing to send to me a single proof-sheet of it, all re- 
 Avritten with quite all he did say thrown out, all the 
 speeches being new matter unseen by me, hence could not 
 be anticipated — we present one sample case before we take 
 him upon tingo. After citing Maimonides on washing- 
 several times, on page 493 he cites him again, and Dr. 
 Alting thus: ^^ Whence the Jews observe that whenever 
 a command occurs for washing the clothes, the washing of 
 the whole body is either added or understood. ^^ Now Dr. 
 Graves immediately adds of me, '^He [Ditzler] declares 
 to you that ^no rabbi on earth says so.^ Was not Mai- 
 monides a rabbi ?'^ Now turn to page 460, whence he 
 copies my words, and see the willful perversion. There I 
 state that ^^ Dr. G. says the ^ most learned rabbins tell us 
 that invariably in the Hebrew purifications where raeliats, 
 ^ to wash,' is spoken of, either of the clothes or of the per- 
 son, the whole body must be immersed in water.' They 
 do no such thing. No rabbi on earth says so.'' Here I 
 assert that no rabbi on earth says in all these cases the 
 person " immersed in water.'' Dr. Graves now changes 
 it to " wash the whole body," and makes my words apply 
 to denying that ! ! On the same page we gave the facts 
 and words of Rabbi M., showing they meant wash, as 
 
248 BAPTISM. 
 
 Alting, his own authority, renders him, but which Drs. G., 
 Wilkes, and all immersionists most unjustly render " dip" 
 and " immerse.'^ 
 
 Continuing to rewrite his speeches, knowing I would 
 not be allowed to see and refute the glaring and reckless 
 assertions (p. 429 of the Carrollton Debate), he says, as 
 to lexicons defining by tingo, that I " was rendering those 
 meanings which those old lexicographers indicate in Latin 
 by tingo by ' to sprinkle ! ' In this respect Elder Ditzler 
 has ignorantly, if not intentionally, misrepresented every 
 lexicon he has quoted." On page 432 he pretends that my 
 ^^ sprinkle" in Tertullian is from ^^ tingo. ''^ Dr. G. had 
 my speeches before him, and in the lexicons he had them 
 before him in print^ — clear type. Hence he knew that every 
 word he uttered above was untrue, and most flagrantly so. 
 
 He knew that not in a single lexicon cited in all the 
 debate, had I rendered tingo sprinkle, but moisten, wet, 
 stain, as the author meant, as pages 197, 438, 88, 378, 
 27-30, abundantly show, and on Tertullian (pp. 244, 245, 
 197). 
 
 On page 482 he says, " Faustianus [misprint for Fersti- 
 anus], whom Dr. Beecher quotes as undoubtedly using 
 tingere in the sense of * to dip,' my opponent makes him 
 say *to sprinkle.' " 
 
 Here are two glaring statements which Dr. G. could 
 not help knowing to be flagrantly untrue. 
 
 1. Beecher quotes and translates tingo in Fiirst by wash, 
 
 and "to moisten"* in other places, as I have done. I 
 
 render it " dip " also. 
 
 * Beecher on Baptism, p. 69: " Fuerstius, in the learned lexicon, de- 
 fines tabhal, rigare, tingere, perfundere, and last of all immergere. To 
 wet, to wash, to perfuse, to immerse." On pat^e 16 B. quotes Facciolatus 
 and Forcellinus and Leverett, who "give it the sense [of] to moisten, to 
 wet." Thus is this bold and false statement exposed. 
 
CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 249 
 
 2. Dr. G. says I render it "sprinkle." He knew bet- 
 ter. It was the German " begiessen/^ in the Latin of 
 Fiirst " jyerf under e/' that I rendered sprinkle, just as 
 Rabbi Wise, imniersionist, and S. Davidson, one of 
 the most learned scholars of this century do. Dr. 
 G. renders the same word, '' perfundet^e/' " besprinkle." 
 Beecher, in the same sentence referred to by Dr. G., ren- 
 ders it " perfuse," i. e. besprinkle. 
 
 On page 473 he says again, " Whenever Elder Ditzler, 
 therefore, translates it {tingo) by ^ to sprinkle,' when lexi- 
 cographers give tingo, intlngo, mergo, immergo, as the j^ri- 
 mary definition of the Hebrew taval, or of the Greek 
 verbs bapto, bapttidzo, or the Syriac amad, he most grossly 
 perverts those authors, and he does it ignorantly or in- 
 tentionally, nor can he escape the alternative." Dr. G. 
 here — : 
 
 1. States what he knew to be without a shadow of truth 
 from beginning to end, as my speeches (pp. 27-e30, 88, 197, 
 438-9, 405, 551) so abundantly show; and they were then 
 all under his eye — in his hands. 
 
 2. He displays an ignorance that is as incurable as it is 
 unendurable by saying that lexicographers define baptidzo 
 and the Syriac amad by tingOj when not a single lexicon 
 extant does so. Sophocles puts the patristic use of tmgo 
 in his lexicon without translating it. Schaaf s Syriac lex- 
 icon gives tingo as a meaning of the Arabic word amada, 
 not of the Syriac amad; nor does any Syriac lexicon we 
 have ever seen define amad by tingo. Page 313, Dr. G. 
 quotes Scapula as defining baptidzo by '^item tingo J^ Page 
 363 I corrected him as well as on his rendering, page 338, 
 yet after this, page 432, he says, " Prof Toy " says " the 
 lexicons frequently give tingere for baptizein. As to this, 
 it is agreed that Tertullian and other Latin writers use 
 
250 BAPTISM. 
 
 tingere always in the sense of to immerse.'' We are 
 not surprised at any statement Dr. G. should make, unless 
 he should for just once tell the truth as to any of these 
 matters, but we had a right to expect better things of 
 Prof. Toy. 
 
 TINOO — DR. GRAVES AND TOY ON. 
 
 1. Prof Toy says, "The lexicons frequently give tin- 
 gere for baptlzeinJ' Let him produce one that does so. 
 He can not do it, save the one single work of S., just 
 named, who does not give tingo as a definition, but sums 
 up the Latin patristic use of it, not translating his words 
 even. We point out these facts, not that it is against us, 
 for tingo helps us far more than them, but we do it to ex- 
 pose the want of care and truth in these parties. Ste- 
 phanus shows that the Latin fathers use tingo for baptize, 
 but he does not define it by tingo for good reasons, Tingo 
 oftener means to stain, tincture, color, dye than any thing 
 else really, though moisten be its primary Latin meaning, 
 and hence no standard lexicon would stultify itself as Drs. 
 Toy and G. do. 
 
 2. Prof T. says, " It is agreed among scholars that T., 
 etc. use tingere always in the sense of immerse.'' This is 
 utterly untrue, as we will show in due time. 
 
 Page 527 Dr. G. says, "All lexicons give to dip and to 
 immerse as synonymous terms, as the Germans give mergo, 
 immergo, and tingo as synonymous of baptidzo.^' 
 
 1. If they give tingo as synonymous with baptidzo all 
 the better for us. 
 
 2. No German lexicon in existence gives tingo as a 
 meaning of baptidzo in any case. 
 
 3. No German lexicon gives dip, or tingo, as synony- 
 
CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 251 
 
 mous with immerse, sink, for the reason that they have 
 learning, sense, and honesty. 
 
 TINGO — DR. GRAVES ON — JEROME ON. 
 
 Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 433) says, ^Merome in the Latin 
 Vulgate, as in all his writings, invariably uses tingo as the 
 Latin synonym of the Greek verb hapto, to dip.'^ 
 
 1. If this was truthfully said of Jerome it would of it- 
 self show how absurd and untrue are all the above asser- 
 tions about tingo being the synonym of baptldzo; for where 
 in the New Testament or any where is bapto used for bap- 
 tism or as the synonym of haptidzof 
 
 2. The statement is utterly untrue in all respects — ut- 
 terly untrue. Bapto occurs in the common Greek text of 
 the New Testament only three times, viz. Luke xvi, 24; 
 John xiii, 26; Revelation xix, 13. Embapjto occurs in 
 Matthew xxvi, 23; Mark xiv, 20. Some copies have it 
 emhapto in John xiii, 26 — Tischendorf, Lachmaun, etc. 
 Now Jerome renders the above three occurrences as fol- 
 lows : 
 
 Luke xvi, 24, intlngat; John xiii, 26, intinctum, intinx- 
 isset (and emhapto he renders intingo every time) ; while 
 the third occurrence of hapto. Revelation xix, 13, he ren- 
 ders thus: Et vestibus erat veste aspersa sanguine — and he 
 was clothed with a vesture sprinkled with blood. In other 
 words, bapto occurs only three times in the Greek New 
 Testament, and Jerome renders it sprinkle in one third of 
 its occurrences, but never renders it in all the Bible by 
 tingo, 
 
 3. If tingo be the synonym of baptidzo, why does not 
 the Itala, Jerome, Beza, and the dozen other Latin ver- 
 sions I have by me render baptidzo by tingo at least once 
 
252 BAPTISM. 
 
 ill all the Bible ? for not one of them does so, neither by 
 intingo. Such is Dr. Graves's reliability ! 
 
 LEXICONS ON TINGO. 
 
 Let us now cite the standard lexicons in order on this 
 much-abused word. As it is derived from the Greek 
 tengo, as Carson justly tells us and all scholars know, we 
 begin with the lexicons on the original. And as Drs. 
 Graves, Wilkes, Campbell, etc. so parade the primary 
 meaning and assume that the first meaning presented is 
 the primary, we may hope they will not fly from their own 
 positions. 
 
 1. Groves: ^^ Tengo ('^r/^), to moisten, wet, water, 
 sprinkle, bedew." 
 
 2. Liddell & Scott: ^' Tengo, to wet, moisten, to bedew 
 with, especially with tears; weep, to shed tears, a shower 
 fell, . . . III. To dye, stain ; Latin, tlngere,'^ etc. 
 
 3. Stephanus: '' Tengo, to moisten, to make wet," with 
 tears, dew, rain. 
 
 4. Pape: ^' Tengo, moisten, wet, shed tears."* 
 
 5. Passow: ^' Tengo, moisten, wet, shed tears." 
 
 6. Rost and Palm: ^^ Tengo, to moisten, to wet, to shed 
 tears," etc. 
 
 Let us now have the Latin lexicons on this word, as 
 spelled in Latin, translated immerse and dip always by 
 Drs. Conant, Graves, Wilkes, etc. : 
 
 1. Andrews: ^^Tingo, to wet, to moisten, (B) to soak or 
 color, to dye, color, tinge." 
 
 2. Freund: ^^Tingo, to wet, moisten, tengo, brecho, hu- 
 graino, [moisten, shed tears, rain, sprinkle, water, sprin- 
 kle], to moisten, to bedew, to bathe, wash, dip in, plunge, 
 immerse ; color, stain, tinge, tint." 
 
 *Benetzen, anfcuchten, Thranen ve7\qicssen. 
 
CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 253 
 
 3. Ainsworth: ^'Tmgo, first, to dye, color, stain; sec- 
 ond, to sprinkle, to imbrue; third, to wash; fourth, to 
 paint." 
 
 4. Anthon: ^^Tlngo, moisten, wet," etc. 
 
 5. White: ''Tingo, moisten, wet," etc. 
 
 This is making poor headway to show that tmgo is 
 synonymous with immerse. 
 
 6. Ovid: ^^Tingerey wet the body with sprinkled 
 water." * 
 
 7. ^^And seems to sprinkle with briny dew the sur- 
 rounding clouds."! 
 
 Here in both cases tlngo is defined in its effect by 
 sprinkle — by a Latin who lived in the apostolic age. 
 
 8. "By chance his hounds, led by the blood-stained 
 track." t 
 
 Was the ground immersed or dipped in the blood of 
 the wounded stag? 
 
 9. Calvin: "It is of no importance whether all who 
 are baptized \tingati\ are immersed [iinergantur\ and that 
 thi'ice or once, or water is only poured on them." § 
 
 Here Calvin, as all the fathers writing in Latin, uses, 
 as Cyprian, Tertullian, etc. did, tingo for baptize, just as 
 Germans do tanfen, we baptize; and when he expresses 
 the different modes in which we could be baptized — tingo 
 — he gives immerse and pour water on them. One more 
 father. 
 
 10. Archbishop Sebastian, of Metz: "Then let the 
 priest take the child in his left arm, and holding him over 
 the font let him with his right hand three several times 
 
 "'■• Ovid, Met. vii, 599 : Tingere corpus aqua aspersa, 
 t Ovid, Met. xi, 498 : Et induciiis aspergine tingere nuhes videiur. 
 X Sa7iguine tincta suo (Ovid, x, 713 ). See Louisville Debate, page 
 430, where many such texts are given, the fruit of much research, 
 g Institutes, lib. iv, chap, xv, sec. 19. 
 
254 BAPTISM. 
 
 take water out of the font and pour it on the child's head 
 so that the water (aqua tingat) wets his head and shoul- 
 der/'* 
 
 Notice here the mode is given ; the water is " poured 
 on the child so that it (tingat) wets his head and shoul- 
 ders." Tingo is the effect of the pour. 
 
 11. Ovid: "Let us wash (tingo is the word) our naked 
 bodies with water poured upon them.^f 
 
 (1) Here the mode in which tingo is effected is again 
 given — the water is poured upon the naked bodies. 
 
 (2) It shows the manner of ancient baths. 
 
 (3) Drs. Graves, Toy, etc., as well as Carson, say that 
 tingo is equivalent to baptidzo in the lexicons and the 
 Lathi fathers, Tertullian, Cyprian, Jerome, etc. Conant 
 renders it immerse constantly also as well as Wilkes. 
 
 (4) All these are as literal uses as language can oifer. 
 They are real persons, Avashed with real water, literally 
 poured upon them. 
 
 12. Horace: "And wet (tinguet) the pavement with 
 wine." What was the mode of tingo here where wine 
 was let fall on the pavement? 
 
 13. Ovid : J "He beat the ground, stained (tinctam) with 
 guilty blood." 
 
 14. Calpuronius: "To wet (tingere) the pastures with 
 dew." Here the dew falls on the pastures and (tingo) wets 
 them. What was the mode? 
 
 Aside from hosts of like citations, Fiirst uses tingo in 
 his Latin lexicon to define the word that in his German 
 lexicon is defined by benetzen — wet. Schindler, Castell, 
 
 '■■ "Wall, i, 577 : Aqua tingat caput et scapulas. 
 t Nuda superfusis tingamus corpora lymphis. 
 
 X Hamum : Scelerato sanguine tinctam. I reread Ovid to select from 
 him, because he was contemporary with the apostolic period. 
 
CLASSICAL USAGE — SUMMARY OF FACTS. 255 
 
 etc. use tingo constantly where it is with tears, dew, rain. 
 We have always frankly stated, also, that in some cases 
 tingo means dip, plunge. And Dr. Graves cites such cases 
 as if it were a contradiction ! Have we not given cases 
 where hosts of words mean to wet, moisten, nay, to sprinkle 
 and pour, that also mean to dip, etc.? What do such par- 
 tisans hope for, or what excuse can they render for such 
 conduct ? 
 
256 BAPTISM, 
 
 CHAPTER XX. 
 
 Baptidzo, Sink, Immerse, Sprinkle — Why do not 
 We Translate? — Why do not They Translate? 
 
 As scholars all agree, it is rare, if ever, that one word 
 exactly represents or is the exact equivalent of another. 
 But where one word, as wash, purify, cleanse, for baptize, 
 occurs, it does necessarily represent all tlie meaning, and 
 no more of the word than the last limiting word con- 
 tains. It limits the other word altogether to what is 
 necessarily contained in that word. This becomes the 
 more decisive when the words occur a great many times 
 by the same school of writers, yet is invariably thus used. 
 Thus haptidzo is wash, cleanse, or [)urify wherever its rit- 
 ualistic import or design is referred to in the Bible. Eph. 
 V, 26; Titus iii, 5; Heb. x, 22; Acts xxii, 16; John iii, 
 22-25; Ps. li, 2-9, etc. See above. The entire force or 
 meaning hajAidzo was intended to have in the New Testa- 
 ment is contained in the words cleanse, wash, or purify. 
 Inspired men in the above texts thus limit its force. It is 
 in this view that baptidzo as referring to the Christian rite 
 oan not be represented by any modal word — immerse, dip, 
 sprinkle, pour — because in the Christian use no one of 
 'hose words represents necessarily the wash, the cleanse, 
 the purify of haptidzo. Sprinkle could and did represent 
 the mere daily baptisms of Mark vii, 4, being mere tra- 
 ditional sprinklings. 
 
 But it is said we will not translate haptidzo by sprinkle 
 
BAPTIDZO, SINK, IMMERSE, SPlilNKLE. 257 
 
 in the New Testament. Why not translate it by a plain 
 English word, sprinkle, and not transfer, merely Angliciz- 
 ing the Greek Avord baptidzof Answer — 
 
 1. Wherever the solemn rite of Christian baptism oc- 
 curs in the New Testament all ancient versions that were 
 in languages kindred to the Greek — all that allowed of it — 
 transferred the word in all such cases. This was the uni- 
 versal practice from the old Itala, the Coptic, the Vulgate, 
 on through the centuries till the days of King James, in- 
 cluding the Italian, Spanish, French, Lusitanian, Wyc- 
 lifFe, fi'om the Vulgate, Tyndale, 1526, and the four or five 
 English versions, with James's as the last. 
 
 2. In every place in the New Testament where the rite 
 of baptism with water is mentioned, not Christian, but 
 Jewish baptism, it can be rendered sprinkle, and is the 
 correct rendering (Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38). 
 
 3. Hence the two best and most ancient copies of the 
 Bible known, copied nearly sixteen hundred years ago, 
 with a number of later manuscript copies, render it 
 "sprinkle themselves'^ in Mark vii, 4. See Versions, for 
 all the facts here. 
 
 4. There is that in the solemn rite of Christian bap- 
 tism, as just shown, that no mere modal word can repre- 
 sent. Baptidzo obtained a significance that no mere word 
 of action could represent in Christian baptism. 
 
 WHY NOT TRANSLATE INTO ENGLISH? 
 
 5. No immersionist does render baptidzo by a plain 
 English word throughout the New Testament. They have 
 never done it and never will do it, putting it in the text as 
 a rendering. They carefully put it in an Anglicized Latin 
 word — immerse, the English of which is to "sink in." 
 
 17 
 
258 BAPTISM. 
 
 "sink." In the Louisville Debate, p. 566, we elaborate 
 this fact, saying, "Now, immerse, simply and literally and 
 alwaygy rfteans to sink, sink in. This is the English.'' 
 Elder Wilkes replies, p. 574, " He tries very hard to prove 
 that mergo, immergo, . . . mean to sink. I believe him. 
 I will save him trouble on that subject by telling him that 
 I know that these words mean to sink." Again, p. 599, 
 he brings it up again and says, "We have Anglicized im- 
 merse from mergo, immergo. It is not necessary for us to 
 give a definition of this word [immerse] now. We know 
 what it means; we are agreed about that.'' A. Campbell 
 renders haptidzo sink over and again. See where the 
 renderings are detailed. 
 
 Dr. J. R. Graves, Carrollton Debate, p. 520, "All the 
 Latin fathers, . . . one and all, understood haptidzo to sig- 
 nify mergo, immergo, tingo, intingo, to sink in," etc. Page 
 389 he has it " sinking in," and often so. 
 
 Now apply that rendering throughout the New Testa- 
 ment. "Came John, the sinker-in." "I sank in none of 
 you but Crispus," etc. "Go, disciple all nations, sinking 
 them in in the name," etc. 
 
 Hence, ancient copyists render it by sprinkle for bap- 
 tize. 
 
 When it appears, as has been shown, that long before 
 haptidzo came to mean to immerse it was taken by the 
 Jews to mean to wash, purify, and thus limited in relig- 
 ious use (Eccles. xxiv, 25; Judith xii, 7), this of itself 
 settles that question. AVhen hapto came to mean stain, 
 (jolor, though in earliest usage it was always by aifusion 
 (see it fully demonstrated in Chapters XI-XIII), yet 
 when it came to mean stain, color, it soon came to apply 
 to coloring where the art of dipping in the fluid was prac- 
 ticed. It applies where the fluid is sprinkled on, drops 
 
BAPTIDZO, SINK, IMMERSE, SPRINKLE. 259 
 
 Oil the garments, and where the garments are dipped. 
 Hence, when hapto is used for stain, it does not imply any 
 particular mode, but only implies the force or necessary 
 limitations of stain in whatever way it may be effected. 
 
260 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER XXI. 
 
 Baptidzo in Aristotle, etc. 
 
 1. We have traced baptidzo from its first appearance in 
 literature among the Greeks, so far as that literature has 
 survived, down to Aristotle, B.C. 384, covering a period 
 of one hundred and thirty-eight years. 
 
 2. In all this period it occurs only in a metaphorical 
 sense, pointing to aji earlier literal use. 
 
 3. In all cases the usage demonstrates that it was as 
 yet never used for dip, never for immerse. 
 
 4. It demonstrates that it primarily meant to sprinkle, 
 thence to pour, thence to wash, to saturate, to drench as 
 the effect of pouring water. Thence it came to mean to 
 soak, intoxicate, make drunk. From pour came overflow, 
 overwhelm. From overwhelm came sink, as a later mean- 
 ing still. From sink came drown, as its effect. 
 
 Let it be remembered that no lexicon in existence gives 
 to baptidzo the meanings dip or immerse till Polybius, 
 Diodorus Sicilus, Strabo, and Plutarch. 
 
 ARISTOTLE, B.C. 384. 
 
 Aristotle uses baptidzo only once in all his writings, so 
 far as found. 
 
 " Certain places full of rushes and sea-weed, which 
 when it is ebb-tide are not overflowed {mae baptidzesthai), 
 but at full-tide are overflowed'^ (katahhidzesthai). 
 
BAPTIDZO IN AHISTOTLE, ETC. 261 
 
 1. Let this case be very carefully examined, for it is 
 the first time in Greek literature in which we come upon 
 the word used literally. 
 
 2. It is used by the most accurate and careful and 
 learned of all Greeks. 
 
 3. It is interchanged with another Avord, used in ex- 
 actly the same sense, both rendered by ^'overflow/' as 
 Stuart, A. Campbell, etc. render it. 
 
 4. There is no dip here ; no one will venture to render 
 it by dipped. 
 
 5. It is not immerse. "The places,'^ lands subject to 
 overflow, did not sink, did not merse or immerse ; but — 
 
 6. The literal water came upon the land. The baptiz- 
 ing element came upon the object, baptizing it. Whether 
 every part of the land was overflowed by the water we 
 can not know. All the reasonable probabilities are that, 
 like all other average districts of country of like kind, 
 parts were overflowed, parts, higher spaces, were not. Yet 
 the whole is baptized. 
 
 7. The most valuable point, though, is the light this 
 literal text throws on the philology of the word. Over- 
 flow is a literal meaning of baptidzo in Aristotle's day. 
 Overflow can not be derived from dip as a primary mean- 
 ing. Hence dip never was a primary, nay, never was a 
 meaning of baptidzo at all. 
 
 8. Further, baptidzo is interchanged with perikludzo. 
 Perikludzo is rendered sprinkle by Stephanus and others.* 
 Passow gives wash, bedash, wet, for kludzo. Groves gives 
 for perikludzo, '^Wash all round or all over, dash water, 
 sprinkle all over." 
 
 Liddell & Scott : Kludzo. See on former page. 
 Glosses: To sprinkle. f 
 
 * Bucldoeus and Stephanus have -epiK/.i-afmri, 2^eriklHsmati, nsj^rgino. 
 t Ai<pcrgo, pcrfnndo. 
 
262 BAPTISM. 
 
 Here is a word — Uudzo — that primarily applies to such 
 aspersions and inspersions as sprinkling water over the 
 body, dashing it on the face, washing out the ears, and 
 from which our noun clyster is derived, coming to mean 
 overflow and to inundate and haptidzo, used in exactly 
 the same sense by the most learned of all Greeks. 
 
 7. Eubulus, B.C. 380, comes next. He uses the word 
 once, its sense altogether uncertain, and hence we omit it. 
 
 8. Evenus, B.C. 250, uses it once, " Wine baptizes with 
 stupor or sleep" (t>;ri/d>, kupno). This is a metaphorical 
 use again and has no dip in it.* 
 
 9. Polybius now appears, born about B.C. 205. He 
 wrote about B.C. 150 or 160, say. He is the first Greek 
 who uses baptidzo for immerse, the earliest cited by any 
 lexicon for such a meaning. Next, about B.C. QQ to 33, 
 Diodorus Siculus; then, later, Strabo, and a.d. 90 Plutarch 
 uses it at times for overwhelm, at times for immerse, 
 i.e. sink; then still also for intoxicate, etc. 
 
 These writers do not write in the ancient, classic style, 
 but are the introducers of a coarse, greatly-modified style 
 of Greek, as Liddell & Scott in the introduction to their 
 lexicon tell us. But long years and centuries before this 
 baptidzo was used for the religious washing of the Jews, 
 and its religious import and action settled before the word 
 came to mean immerse. It never does mean to dip, as we 
 saw. 
 
 ••• If any one urge that, at least we may say, one sinks in sleep, so 
 may we sa}- , " Pour delicious slumber o'er mine eyes." Poets often use 
 pour for such an idea. And there is no dij). 
 
BAPTIDZO IN LATEK GREEK — CON ANT. 26o 
 
 CHAPTER XXII. 
 
 Baptidzo in Later Greek — Conant. 
 
 In addition to the facts adduced^ we will copy a few 
 later cases adduced by Dr. Conant as the strongest cases 
 in favor of his immersion theory. In his ^'Baptizein'^ 
 we select — 
 
 1. Page 10: ^'And those of the submerged (baptized) 
 who raised their heads, either a missile reached or a vessel 
 overtook" — "their heads being raised."* 
 
 Not one of these parties was totally under the water. 
 Conant translates it " submerged." He tries to make 
 them rear their heads after being " submerged." No such 
 thought or fact is in the Greek. " But the elevated heads 
 of those baptized either a missile reached or a vessel caj)- 
 tured." Though these parties were partly immersed the 
 heads, with of course a part of the shoulders, were above 
 the water. In that condition some were shot with their 
 missiles, others were captured. There was no complete 
 envelopment. 
 
 2. Plutarch (Conant, p. 11) : "A bladder, thou may est 
 be immersed (baptized) ; but it is not possible to thee to 
 sink." t The Greek reads, "A bladder, thou may est be 
 baptized, but it is not fated to thee to be immersed." 
 Drs. Conant, Campbell, Carson, Gale, Graves, all use the 
 
 ■•• Twv de ^aTTTiadivruv tovc avavEvovrag rj ^eXog ecfSavev, rj ff;!(edia Kare- 
 7Mju6ave. 
 
 t A<7/cof (ia-Tl'Cy • Avvm 6i toi bv ■&£juor eartv. 
 
264 BAPTISM. 
 
 English sink for the Latin immerse in its Anglicized 
 form, and Conant conceals the truth constantly by a 
 play upon those words. Why render haptidzo there by 
 immerse, and clanal, which always means immerse, by 
 the English word sink ? The bladder was baptized, but 
 would not go under. We know they will not go under 
 of themselves. This is just the kind of classic baptism 
 as the other preceding it in Joseph us, save that the man 
 raersed deeper in tlie sea-water than the bladder. Neither 
 was enveloped, covered. 
 
 3. Conant, 11, 12, Ex. 25: "The soldiers . . . dipping 
 (baptizing) with cups, and horns, and goblets, from great 
 wine-jars and mixing-bowls." Who believes the cups, 
 goblets, and horns were entirely submerged in the wine? 
 But there are some strange points here. Where was ever 
 haptidzo used for "dipping horns "or anything else? We 
 have seen, all admit, that haptidzo is used often, commonly, 
 for becoming drunk, intoxicated, etc. Hence it reads, 
 "The soldiers becoming drunk — intoxicated — out (ek) 
 of great wine-jars,"* etc., "with cups and horns, and 
 goblets," "along the whole way were drinking to one an- 
 other." The ek, "out of," forbids dip as the meaning 
 here. 
 
 4. Ihid. 18: "And already becoming immerged (bap- 
 tized) and wanting little of sinking, some of the pirates at 
 first attempted to leave (the vessel) and get aboard their 
 own bark." 
 
 (1) Here to conceal the facts so patent the doctor ren- 
 ders haptidzo by "becoming immerged," and immerse, in 
 Greek, he renders again by sink, the English of immerse. 
 And this in face of his just admission and statement that 
 haptidzo implies as complete sinking where the parties 
 
 * Ot arpariurat (iairriCovreq ta ~iOo)i' /ayci/uv. 
 
BAPTIDZO IX LATER GREEK — COXANT. 265 
 
 perish, as dunai, contrary to Suicer, Pasor, Beza, whom A. 
 Campbell follows. 
 
 (2) The Greek reads, '^Aiid already being baptized and 
 wanting little of being immersed* (katadunai), some of 
 the pirates at first attempted to leave (the vessel) and get 
 aboard of their own bark." 
 
 (3) If the baptidzo immersed the vessel — completely 
 enveloped it — i. e. if it put it entirely under the water — 
 why did it not go to the bottom at once, as all vessels do — 
 ships — whenever they by such calamities go clean under? 
 
 (4) Why does the writer say that although the vessel 
 was ^'already baptized," yet it was not yet ^'immersed," 
 yet '^ wanting little of being immersed." Dr. C. will not 
 deny that immerse is the literal meaning of katadunai. 
 
 (5) Though the vessel was ^^ already baptized," yet the 
 parties are consulting, talking together, about leaving the 
 ship. How could this occur among a part of the pirates if 
 the vessel had "already been immersed" — wholly envel- 
 oped under water? 
 
 5. Conant, p. 20, Ex. 42: "^The whole sword was 
 warmed with blood ^ (Homer) ... as if the sword were 
 so imbathed (baptized) as to be heated." This is a later 
 Greek writer commenting on the ancient Homer's words, 
 the former using the words "warmed with blood," the 
 latter baptized with blood. 
 
 (1) Baptize here is not immersion. 
 
 (2) It was by effusion — the blood gushing out on the 
 sword. 
 
 (3) Conant then commits the unpardonable literary sin 
 of rendering Homer's stronger word, ^' hupethermanthce/' 
 by "warmed," and the tamer critics less intense word 
 thermanthcenai by "heated"! The Greek is, "As if the 
 
 *■ 'lldfj de [iaTTriC,oixevo)v Kal Karadvvac /aiKpov aTzoXtLndvTuv. 
 
266 BAPTISM. 
 
 sword were so baptized [with blood — haimati] as to be 
 warmed.'^ * Surely the blood that flowed from the pierced 
 head of Echelusf did not immerse ^Hhe whole sword/' 
 It is a clear case of effusion of blood on the sword. 
 
 6. Conant's 69th Example, p. 33, is his strongest for 
 "dip." "Casting a little of the ashes [of the burnt 
 heifer] into a fountain and dipping (baptizing) a hyssop 
 branch/' etc. In this case — 
 
 (1) Dr. Conant changes the ordinary reading of the 
 Greek text, which can not be allowed. 
 
 (2) Conant admits that the copyist of the Greek text 
 has been guilty of "an error in copying.'' He thinks 
 "the common reading" of the Greek J shows the same 
 thing. But he renders it differently, " immerse," not dip, 
 by indorsing the Latin scholiast. Unquestionably the 
 Greek he and Bekker make is wrong, as it violates the 
 whole tenor of Greek usage. His own Greek, given in 
 the note, which is "the common reading," is, "and bap- 
 tizing some of the ashes into the fountain;" pouring or 
 immersing them into the fountain, whichever rendering 
 you prefer, it equally suits my present object. It is not 
 dip. The hyssop is not the object of baptidzo by this 
 "common reading." And were it so, it would be clear 
 evidence that the error of the copyist was in putting it 
 baptidzo for hapto. 
 
 7. Ibid. 22 : " He did not plunge in (baptize) the sword, 
 nor sever that hostile head ! " The Greek is, " not even 
 to sever that hostile head." Clearly the word here is not 
 
 ■••• Ticiv 6' v7Te6Epfj.dvftrj ^i<j)og dijuart . . . ijr re -^epfiavdrivai. 
 
 t Homer's II. xxii, line 476, on which the unknown writer com- 
 ments, using baptidzo. Homer never uses it. 
 
 X "Which begins thus : BaTrricavTeg te koX Trjq r£(f>ag ravTTjq e'lg Tzrfyi/v — 
 which an old author he indorses renders — ejusdemque cineris oliquantu- 
 lutn In aquam immcrgcntes. But this Is infinitely different from dipping. 
 
BAPTIDZO IN LATER GREEK — CONANT. 267 
 
 *^ plunge in,'' as if point foremost, but edge foremost, to 
 "sever the head" from the body. In cutting off the head 
 no one plunges in a sword point foremost. We know how 
 a sword is used in cutting off a man's head. Baptldzo 
 here expresses (Chrysostom) this act. Immersion, en- 
 velopment is out of the question. 
 
 8. Ibid. 23: "And that the immerged (baptized) ship 
 beyond all hope is saved, is of the providence of God ; " 
 "in the sudden coming as of storm or tempest." Clearly 
 this "immerged ship" is not "immerged." If the bap- 
 tidzo put it clear under, it never was saved or could be. 
 It is baptized by the waves dashing upon it, but not im- 
 mersed. That the baptized ship "contrary (or against 
 hope) is saved" — :zap IX-tda. Yet C. puts it, "beyond all 
 hope." It is not there. Where is the "all" in the 
 Greek? 
 
 9. Conant, p. 32: "And dipping (baptizing) his hand 
 into the blood, he set up a trophy, inscribing it," etc. 
 
 (1) Suppose we were to accept this rendering, it does 
 not prove their theory of immersion ; for there is no evi- 
 dence from their rendering that complete envelopment of 
 the hand in the human blood took place. 
 
 (2) There is every reason to suppose it did not take 
 place, for who would immerse their entire hand in blood 
 merely to have blood on a finger with which to write an 
 inscription on a trophy? 
 
 (3) It is long after Christ, and therefore belongs to the 
 later, corrupted Greek. 
 
 10. Ibid. His 50th Example, pp. 23, 24, is more than 
 doubtful as to a total immersion. 
 
 11. (Joseph us 33) : " He plunged (baptized) the whole 
 sword into his own neck." 
 
 No immergence, no total envelopment here. 
 
268 BAPTISM. 
 
 12. Ibid. 34: ^'Immerse (baptize) it (the pessary) into 
 breast-milk and Egyptian ointment/^ The ancient Egyp- 
 tian pessary or '^blister-plaster'^ was wholly diiferent 
 from the pessary of modern science and wholly different 
 in application. It was compounded of " honey, turpen- 
 tine, butter, oil of lily or of rose, and saffron, each one 
 part, with sometimes a small quantity of verdigris"* and 
 used as a blister. It was baptized with, or wetted par- 
 tially in the '' milk of a woman " — that is the Greek, f 
 Immersion was not necessary nor possible. 
 
 13. Ibid. 34. His 71st Example is rendered, like many 
 others, to conceal the facts. " The mass of iron drawn 
 red-hot'^ was ''by the smiths'^ (plural), and is ^'baptized 
 with water" to "quench its fiery glow." Such a large 
 mass of iron, red-hot, is not plunged into water to be 
 cooled. It is against plunge. Such "a mass of red-hot 
 iron " plunged into water would throw quite all the water 
 out and all over the smiths, baptizing them. 
 
 14. "Plunge (baptize) the sword into the enemy's 
 breast." No total envelopment here (p. 37, ibid.). 
 
 15. Ibid. 38: "Plunge (baptize) his right hand in his 
 father's neck." The hand or weapon in it was not likely 
 to be enveloped, completely submerged in his father's 
 neck. 
 
 Conant, p. 2, Exam])le 2 : " But most of them (ships 
 of the Romans), when the prow was let fall from on high, 
 being submerged (baptized) became filled with sea-water 
 and confusion." 
 
 If " submerged " how could the people become con- 
 fused and the vessel fill up with sea-water? The ships 
 evidently became partially overwhelmed, sea-water ran in 
 
 * *Ef ydXa ywaiKoq. ' 
 
 t Dunglison's Med, Dictionary, p. 37. 
 
BAPTIDZO IX LATER CiPvEEK COXANT. 2G9 
 
 in great qiiaiitities, and the Romans became confused 
 thereby. But how couhl men fighting on a A^essel, as 
 they did in that day, remain on deck in a state of confu- 
 sion or nonconfusion after the vessel was sunk clear under 
 water, ^^ being submerged '' ? 
 
 Now, the above texts are all copied from the literal 
 use of baptidzo presented by Con ant (though one or two 
 at least, if not three or four are not literal cases), clearly 
 showing that even in classic, yet Iron-age Greek after 
 baptidzo came to mean to immerse, it still, in that age, 
 did not generally or often apply to complete immersions ; 
 and that to express complete immersion they generally 
 supplied, as seen, dunai, hatadunai to express that idea. 
 
 Another point is clear, that wherever baptidzo does 
 completely immerse a living object it perishes. 
 
 That *' whelm," ^^ overwhelm," and such uses of bap)- 
 tidzo point to affusion — the element descending, falling on 
 the object — may be seen further by the very words used, 
 clearly pointing out this fact. Take from Dr. Conant the 
 following examples : 
 
 Page 79, Example 162 : "Achilles Tatius : For that 
 which, of a sudden, comes all at once and unexpected, 
 shocks the soul, falling on it unawares, and whelms (bap- 
 tizes)." * Here, first, the word baptidzo is much strength- 
 ened with a preposition far stronger than merely the 
 word uncompounded ; second, the mode is defined — the ele- 
 ment that baptizes (katebaptize) does so by '^ falling on it." 
 Where is the dip, where the plunge, Avhere the sink here ? 
 
 Page 66, Example 136, Dr. Conant quotes Philo : "As 
 though reason were whelmed (baptized) by the things 
 overlying it." f Here the things that rest or fall upon 
 
 •*" "A^vw TzpoOTzea&v koX KarebaTTTice. 
 t Toiq ETtiovat, the things upon it. 
 
270 BAPTISM. 
 
 (epi) the reason, "food and drink," baptize it, "resting 
 upon it.'' 
 
 Tatius (Conant, p. 26, Example 56) : " The blood . . . 
 boiling up through intense vigor, often overflows the 
 veins, and flooding {perikludzo) the head within, whelms 
 (baptizes) the passage of reason.'' Here is affusion, not 
 dipping. 
 
BxVPTIDZO IX PATRISTIC GREEK. 271 
 
 CHAPTER XXIII. 
 
 Baptidzo in Patristic Greek. 
 
 "We introduce baptism among the fathers by citing 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, a.d. 190. 
 
 '^ But purity is to think purely. And indeed the 
 image ''^ of the baptism [of the Bible] was handed down 
 from Moses to the poets thus — 
 
 ^' ^ Having besprinkled herself with water, having on 
 her body clean garments, Penelope comes to prayer.' f 
 ^ But Telemachus, . . . having washed his hands at the 
 hoary sea, prays to Athene' (Minerva). This custom 
 (ethos) of the Jews, as they also often baptize themselves 
 upon a couch, is well expressed also in this verse, ^Be 
 pure, not by washing, but by thinking.' " X Here — 
 
 1. Sprinkling the water on herself before prayer was 
 an image (eikon), likeness, of the baptism taught in the 
 Bible. 
 
 2. ^^ Sprinkled herself with water." The word is com- 
 
 ■••■■ EiKojv, image, not ovfiSoTiOv, symbol, but image, 
 t Odyssey iv, 759, is where he cites Homer. 
 
 X Ayveia 6e eon ^povelv bata Kal di) Kal ■q ehiov rov (iaTTTicfiaroQ eltj av Kot 
 t) t/c M-uvceug TrapadeSo/xevrj rolg TzoLr/ToiQ o)6e ttcjq. 
 
 'H & vdpr/va/iiivjj Kadapa xpot E'l/iar' exovcra. Odys. iv, 759. 
 
 'H JleveXoTTf} T7]v kvx^v Ipx^Tai. 
 
 Tq2,ifiaxog 6e . . . 
 
 Xeipag vi^dfievoq Tro^i^g dXog, evx£t' Adrjvr]. Odys. ii, 261. 
 
 'E^of TovTo 'lovdaio)v, 6g Kai to TToTikaKiq kirl Ko'irr) /iaTrri^eadai. 
 
 Ev yovv KCiKeivo etprjTar 
 
 "Icdt. fij] /iovrpu, d?i.?ia v6(p KaBapoc. Clemens Alex, i, 1352. 
 
272 BAPTISM. 
 
 pounded of huder, water, and raino, to sprinkle. Liddell 
 & Scott's Lexicon renders the word '^ to pour water over 
 one's body."* 
 
 3. Washing the hands at the sea was an image of bap- 
 tism. Where was the immersion in these cases? 
 
 4. It was the custom of the Jew^s to " baptize often 
 upon a (jouch " — not after the couch, not {apo koiiaes) from 
 a couch, but {epi koitae) " upon a couch." The suggestion 
 of some that it refers to purification after pollution upon 
 a couch is far-fetched and against the grammatical force of 
 the words. 
 
 5. Clemens precedes the sentence with these words: 
 ^' In like manner they say it becomes those who have washed 
 themselves (leloumenous) to go forth to sacrifices and prayer 
 pure and bright." The suggestion of Carson, followed by 
 Elder Wilkes, makes {ep'i koitae) " upon a couch" refer 
 to sexual relations. But both Penelope and Telem- 
 achus were preparing for prayers, not baptizing because 
 of or from sexual defilement, neither having been thus 
 polluted. Indeed the poets knew nothing of that rite. 
 The custom Clemens refers to was one taught not merely 
 by Moses, but by the poets, and he tells us what it was as 
 practiced in the poets — they sprinkled themselves with 
 water. And here he uses raino, nipto, louo, and haptidzo 
 all for the same thing — baptism. We have seen in the 
 laver argument what the washing of the Jews was.f 
 
 ■•'■'Aovrpa vdpdvacdai xpoi (Eur. El. 157), to water, to sprinkle with 
 water, to pour out libations ; 77iid., to bathe, wash oneself (L, & S. on 
 same). 
 
 tHervetus, a Greek, who translated Clemens, and was his commen- 
 tator, knowing all the facts, says, " The Jews washed themselves, not 
 only at sacrifices but also at feasts, and this is the reason why Clement 
 says that they purified or washed upon a couch ; that is, a dining-couch 
 or triclinium. To this Mark refers, chap, vii, and Matthew, chap. xv. 
 
BAPTIDZO IX PATRISTIO GREEK. 273 
 
 BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 
 
 In Origen, on John i, 25, we read, " How came you 
 to think that Elias, when he should come, would baptize, 
 who did not baptize the wood upon the altar in the days 
 (times) of Ahab, although it needed purification [or cleans- 
 ing — loutroii\ in order that it might be burned when the 
 Lord should be revealed by fire; for this [baptizing the 
 wood upon the altar] was ordered to be done by the 
 priests." * 
 
 Now let us cite the facts referred to by the learned 
 Origen, born only some eighty-three to eighty-five years 
 after John the Apostle died, found in 1 Kings xviii, 
 31-35, 38 : ^^And Elijah took twelve stones, according to 
 the number of the tribes of the sons of Jacob, unto whom 
 the word of the Lord came, saying, Israel shall be thy 
 Tertullian refers to it when he says, '' Judaius Israel quotidie lavat—- 
 daily washes." 
 
 The only argument relied on for such far-fetched assumption as 
 that of Carson is, Clemens had page 1184, nearly two hundred pages 
 apart — atto zTjg Kara cvl^vyiav Koirrjq . . . (iaTTTi^eadai — to baptize from the 
 couch on account of sexual intercourse. This is as different from the 
 other as day is from night. 'Atto is not ettI, as Carson assumes. Koiry 
 is not KoiTf]^, much less is Kara avC,vyiav, which latter is the word for sex- 
 ual intercourse. " Baptize cnrb from a dead body," airb " from the mar- 
 ket " (Mark vii, 4) ; " sprinkle airb from an evil conscience " ; " Baptize 
 yourselves (nrd from anger, malice, covetousness," etc. (Chrysostom). 
 That is Greek. But were it etzI, it would be infinitely different. Sexual 
 intercourse is not expressed by ettI koItij any where in the world. In 
 Origen's rendering of Genesis, Jacob sat upon his couch — tTtl ryv koIttjv. 
 Opera Omnia, vol. 2, p. 145, ed. 1862. 
 
 * Origen : Tl66ev Se vfilv ■neTriaTevrat 'Rliav (^aTrriaeiv rbv eXevadjuevov, 
 oi'd^: ra ettl to, tov ^vGLaarripiov ^iiTia, Kara rovg -rov 'Axaab xpovovg^ deojueva 
 ?.ovTpbv^ Iva eKKavdri, ETCL^avhroq kv Tzvpl rov Kvpiov, (^anTiaavrog ; eTriKel- 
 everai yap roiq lepevai tovto TTOiyaai, ov [lovov aiza^^ Myei ydp^ etc. ... 6 
 Tolvov fi?) avrbg (SaTTrioag rore^ k. r. A. irug Kara ra vrrb rov Ma?.axiov ?.ey6jueva 
 ETztdrjixTjaag fSaTrrli^eiv 'ifxeTiXe [Orige7iis Oj^era Omnia, Toinus Quartus, vol. 
 4, p. 231, 1862). 
 18 
 
274 baptis:n[. 
 
 name: And witli the stones he built an altar in the 
 name of the Lord; and he made a trench about the 
 uitar, as great as would contain two measures of seed. 
 And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in 
 pieces, and laid him on the wood, and said, Fill four bar- 
 rels with water, and pour it on the burnt sacrifice, and on 
 the wood. And he said, Do it the second time. And they 
 did it the second time. And he said, Do it the third time. 
 And they did it the third time. And the water ran round 
 about the altar; and he filled the trench also with water. 
 . . . Then the fire of the Lord fell, and consumed the 
 burnt sacrifice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, 
 and licked up the water that was in the trench.^' 
 
 Basil, A.D. 310, says of this event, " Elias showed the 
 power of baptism on the altar. . . . When the water . . . 
 was for the third time poured on the altar, the fire began. 
 . . . The Scriptures hereby show that through baptism,'' 
 etc. Other fathers speak of it as baptism. This is enough. 
 
 Notice now — 
 
 1. It was "the wood upon the altar" that was *• bap- 
 tized.'' 
 
 2. Elijah had the priests who brought the water to 
 "pour it on the burnt sacrifice and on the wood." 
 
 3. Origen says they " baptized the wood on the altar." 
 
 4. Basil says he showed the power of baptism on the 
 altar, " when the water . . . was poured on the altar." 
 
 But immersion ingenuity is not wanting even in so 
 clear a case as this. A. Cauipbell suggests, following the 
 astute Carson, tbat twelve barrels of water " overwhelmed " 
 the altar, submerged, " as it were," the altar. Indeed ! Let 
 us see into this. 
 
 1. It was an altar built of stones on the top of a moun- 
 tain — Carmel. 
 
BAPTIDZO IN PATRISTIC (aiKEK. Z < .J 
 
 2. It was during the great drouth — every thing burn- 
 ing up. 
 
 3. Wood was then laid upon the altar of stones, enough 
 for an ox to be laid thereupon. 
 
 4. A slaughtered ox was placed upon the altar thus 
 built, '^on the wood." Now, how could this altar, or the 
 wood on it, be immersed ? Where is the '^ plunge '' ? 
 Where is the immerse, sink in? Where is the "dip"? 
 Where is the action, the specific action? Where is the 
 mode? the "burial," cover up? But we are not done. 
 
 o. No such vessel as our barrel was known then. The 
 word^ in the Hebrew (kad) never means barrel. Except 
 tlie place where the widow had a measure of meal hid 
 away in a barrel, and this place, it is never rendered bar- 
 rel, and in that place it means pitcher — enough meal to 
 make a little cake only being hid. No lexicon, no ancient 
 version ever rendered it barrel. No scholar will ever con- 
 tend that it has any such meaning. The ancient Greek 
 version has it bucket, water-pot, or pail. Gesenius, Fiirst, 
 and all others define it, "bucket, pail, both for drawing 
 water and carrying it." Gregory Nazianzen expresses it 
 exactly, alluding to this baptism : " Cast [the water] over 
 it from water-pots." Four pitchers or rather buckets of 
 water were poured on this altar and the ox three times 
 repeated. Before the second or third bucket could be 
 poured on, the first would run off. Where is the "over- 
 whelm"? But— 
 
 6. The little trench dug around the altar had to be 
 filled with extra water. " And he filled the trench also 
 
 * "^5 kad, ^ t'^ kadim, pitchers, never means barrel, and is never so 
 defined in any version of antiquity, or in any lexicon we ever saw. It 
 occurs in Genesis xxiv, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, 43, 45, 46, where Rebekah 
 draws water out of a well with one; so Judges vii, 16, 19, 20; Ecclesi' 
 astes xii, 6, "pitcher"; 1 Kings xvii, 12, 14, 16, "barrel." 
 
27(j BAPTISM. 
 
 with water'' (1 Kings xviii, 35). The trench held (sabhib) 
 one and a half peck measure. 
 
 7. After the water had been poured on, the trench 
 filled, still "dusf was found under and about the altar. 
 There could have been no overwhelming with water, there- 
 fore. The fire consumed the dust, and licked up the water 
 that was in the trench. Tiiese are the facts. Twelve 
 buckets of water, only four at a time, or one at a time till 
 four were poured on, then a pause, then repeated, never 
 immersed, dipped, or plunged the altar, nor the wood on 
 it. All together doubled, quadrupled, would not do it. 
 They did baptize the wood, the altar. Wilkes, dodging all 
 the above facts in the debate (p. 576), urges for "an over- 
 whelming. That altar and that victim were as drenched, 
 or as wet, or soaked with water'' as if " immersed." Alas, 
 how was he drenched with water? It was "poured." Tlie 
 wood was baptized, not " as it were " " overwhelmed." It 
 was baptized. O, but Wilkes says, " a man comes out of 
 the rain, and we say he is drenched." " It means an over- 
 whelming." Not exactly. No one speaks of a man merely 
 drenched in rain as overwhelmed. But what was the spe- 
 cific water, the mode of his drenching? He is baptized; 
 you say drenched. It is a literal act, a literal drenching, 
 a literal person and rain ; no metaphor here. How was he 
 baptized? "The water was poured," says Mr. Wilkes. 
 Yes, and so baptized the object. Origen is commenting 
 on John i, 25, 26, where they thought Messiah would bap- 
 tize. It is of baptism practiced under Christ he is dis- 
 coursing. It is literal, therefore. The water was poured 
 out of water-pitchers on the wood that was on the altar 
 of stones, on the dry and parched heights of Carmel. As 
 immersionists insist so earnestly that " baptidzo ahvays 
 means to dip," " expressing nothing but mode," let them 
 
BAPTIDZO IN rATRLSTIC GREEK. 2n 
 
 apply '^dip^' here. How came you to think Elias would 
 dip . . . who did not dip the wood uj)on the altar? in the 
 face of the fact that literal water was literally poured by 
 "literal" men, out of "literal" water-pitchers, upon the 
 literal wood of the literal altar, baptizing it? 
 
 No one case of baptism in all history has been so per- 
 verted by immersionists as the case of Novatian, a. d. 
 251. After I published the original Greek in Louisville 
 Debate (p. 590), with a literal translation, it is pleasant 
 to see Dr. Varden, of Kentucky, publishing to his Bap- 
 tist brethren a translation, word for word as my own, tell- 
 ing them how incorrect were the partisan uses made by 
 false renderings of this passage. Here is a literal render- 
 ing of the passage : " To him, indeed, the origin [or au- 
 thor] of his profession was Satan, who entered into and 
 dwelt in him a long time ; who, being assisted by the ex- 
 orcists, while attacked with an obstinate disease, and being 
 supposed at the point of death, received it [baptism] in 
 the bed on which he lay, by being sprinkled — if indeed it 
 is proper to say that such [a wicked] person received it," -'' 
 baptism. 
 
 1. Not a single doubt is thrown on the mode of this 
 baptism. "He received it" — elahen. 
 
 2. It was by sprinkling. 
 
 3. When he recovered he never was rebaptized, never 
 
 *'i2 ye acpopfi^ rov Triarevaai yeyovev 6 Garavag^ (poirijaag elg avrov koL 
 oiKTjGaQ kv avTO) xpofov Ifcavov, be (iorjdohfXEVog virb eTTopKiaruv, v6cfo) TrepcrreGov 
 XarsTTTj^ Kal aTcoaaveiadat boov ovdewoj vojui^dfievoc, ev avrfj tt] ii?/ivrj ?'} iKeiro, 
 Trepix^deig llaBev ei ye XPV ^^y^i-v tov el?.jj(j)evai. Eusebius, Eccles. Hist., 
 b. vi, chap, xliii, p. 401, sec. 15 ; Recensuit Echcardus Burton, Oxonii, 
 etc., 1838, vol. 1. 
 
278 BAPTISM. 
 
 was asked to do so, nor complained of by any one for not 
 doing so. Had any doubt existed as to the mode of his 
 baptism they could readily have baptized him. 
 
 4. If baptism is immersion, how could they say, " He 
 received immersion by being sprinkled ! '^ 
 
 Scott (immersionist) copies it from Baptist sources 
 thus, " He received baptism, being sprinkled with water 
 on the bed where he lay, if that can be called baptism ! '' 
 No such phrase as the last occurs in the Greek. The ton 
 toiouton is masculine, and refers to the wicked person, not 
 to baptism, as the merest tyro in Greek can see. 
 
 As immersionists have so perversely quoted the action 
 of a council on this — Neo Csesarea, Canon 12th — we quote 
 the favorite immersionist historian, Neander (vol. 1, p. 
 338, revised edition of Torrey, 1872): ''Its object [the 
 ecclesiastical law] was simply to exclude from the spirit- 
 ual order those who had been induced to receive baptism 
 without true repentance, conviction, and knowledge, in 
 the momentary agitation excited by the fear of death. 
 In Novatian's case every apprehension of this kind was 
 removed by his subsequent life." Again, as to the law 
 (Canon 12th, a.d. 314) it says, ''After it had been here 
 declared that a person baptized in sickness could not be 
 consecrated as a presbyter, it was assigned as a reason, 
 ' that such faith did not spring from free conviction, but 
 was forced/ " And " an exception was made, viz. unless 
 it might be permitted on account of his subsequent zeal 
 and faith. '^ 
 
 We now give the Canon 12th of Neo Csesarea: "If 
 any one be enlightened [i. e. baptized] during sickness 
 (v<y<j-a;v)j he Can not be advanced to the priesthood, for his 
 faith is not of a settled purpose, but of necessity, unless 
 indeed perhaps this defect is overlooked on account of his 
 
BAPTIDZO IX rATRlSTIC GUEEK. 279 
 
 subsequent diligence and faith, and tiu'oiigli the scarcity 
 of men." 
 
 Ambrose ; " He who wished to be purified with a typ- 
 ical baptism (typlco baptismatl) was sprinkled'*^ with the 
 blood of a lamb, by means of a bunch of hyssop." 
 
 Cyrill, of Alexandria, on Isaiah iv, 4: " We have been 
 baptized not with mere water, nor yet with the ashes of a 
 heifer [in the water of sprinkling], but with the Holy 
 Spirit," etc. Here the sprinkling of Numbers xix, 13, 
 18, 22 ; Hebrews ix, 13, quoted also, are baptisms. 
 
 Jerome, a.d. 385, on Ezekiel xxxvi, 25: ^^^Then will 
 I sprinkle clean water upon you.' So that upon those 
 who believe and are converted from error I might pour 
 out the clean water of baptism." 
 
 PATRISTIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Here this most accurate and wise of the fathers, and 
 most learned of all the Latin fathers, held Ezekiel xxxvi, 
 25, to be water baptism, just as Cyprian, A.D. 251, did. 
 
 Cyrill, again, 426: '^He will make the early and the 
 latter rain to come down upon you as of old. . . . (Joel 
 ii, 23, 25). There has been given to us, as in rain, the 
 living water of holy baptism." 
 
 Sulpicius Severus, a.d. 403: '^Remember that thou 
 hast, under the hallowed dew of the font and the laver, 
 been sealed with the chrism.'' 
 
 The Centuriator's (quoting Socrates) Hist. Eccles., vii, 
 17, tells of a font " out of which the water is poured upon 
 those baptized." f 
 
 ''^ Adspergehatur. 
 
 tBaptizato aqua superfusa . . . Aquam in mio alveo Jitd . . . effiuxert 
 cxisthnarei^ alveo hapHsferii etc. . . . aqna rursus 2ye7iih(s cvanmt (Soc. 
 vii, 17). 
 
280 BAPTISM. 
 
 Constantine the Great was baptized by sprinkling. 
 
 Cladovius, a.d. 499, king of the Franks, was sprink- 
 led in his baptism. 
 
 Germadius, of Marseilles, a.d. 490, said, " The person 
 baptized was either sprinkled (aspergitur) or dipped (intin- 
 gitur)J' 
 
 Lactantius, a.d. 325: '^ So likewise he might save the 
 gentiles by baptism; that is, by sprinkling the purifying 
 water.^^ * 
 
 Cyrill treated both Isaiah i, 16 and Leviticus viii, 6, 7, 
 both wash and sprinkle water, as baptism. 
 
 Ambrose baptized Theodosius the Great by sprinkling. 
 
 Hilarius said, "There are not wanting daily sick 
 persons who are to be baptized." 
 
 The Praeter Ariontheus was baptized by sprinkling. 
 
 Tertullian : " These two baptisms he poured forth i'rom 
 the Avound of his pierced side." f 
 
 Ambrose: "Whence is baptism unless from the cross 
 of Christ?": 
 
 John of Damascus : " The baptism of blood and mar- 
 tyrdom by which Christ suffered himself to be baptized 
 for us." § 
 
 Origen and Athanasius held to the same. 
 
 Origen on Luke xii, 50 : " For Christ shed his blood," 
 etc. " For it is the baptism of blood alone that renders us 
 more ])ure than the baptism of water. ^I have a baptism, 
 etc' You see, therefore, that he called the shedding of 
 his blood baptism." 
 
 All the fathers of these centuries refer the baptism 
 
 '^Sic etiam gentes baptismo, id est, purifici roris perfuaione salvaret 
 
 tDuo baptismus. Paris ed. 1634, pp. 35-37. 
 
 t Unce sit baptisma nisi cle crucc Christi ? I, 356. 
 
 § To (3dTTTiafj,a 6' al/xaro^ kol /uaprvpiov b koX 6 ;:(picrTog vrcep tjjuuv efioTr- 
 
BAPTIDZO IN PATRISTIC GREEK. 281 
 
 just named to his crucifixion, to the shedding of his blood 
 and the water from his side, and not, as immersionists and 
 some modern lexicons, to his sufferings, e. g. in the 
 garden, etc. 
 
 Kuth^s Reliquis Sacrse, iii, 489 : ^^ So that he, expect- 
 ing to die, asked to receive the water . . . baptism. And 
 he baptized him by sprinkling in the couch where he 
 lay/' * This is in almost the same words of the learned 
 Eusebius. Note, ^'He baptized him.^' It was by sprink- 
 ling the water on him. Notice, it do n't say he sprinkled 
 him — "he baptized him by sprinkling him." 
 
 Tertullian is emphasized a great deal by immersionists, 
 and indeed he is the first man in all the world who names 
 dipping or immersion for baptism. But it was by three 
 immersions, the parties naked. But lie supports affu- 
 sion as well. His facts show that they stood them in 
 water to be baptized very often, the baptism being by 
 affusion, but in water to "imbibe'' the "mighty grace of 
 water." He says, "Notf that I deny that the divine ben- 
 efit ... is, in every way, sure to such as are on the point 
 of entering the water; but Avhat we have to labor for is 
 that it maybe granted to us to attain that blessing; for 
 who will grant to you, a man of so faithless repentance, 
 one single sprinkling of the water whatever? "J 
 
 Again, on the question of whether the twelve apostles 
 were l)aptized or not, he urges, " Others make the sugges- 
 tion — forced enough to be sure — 'that the apostles then 
 served the term of baptism when, in their little ship, they 
 were sprinkled [adspersi] and covered with the waves; that 
 Peter also was mersed enough [satis mersum'] when he 
 
 * 'Ei^ avTTi TTJ K?uo7i i] e.KELTo -nepixvdevra drjdev eOaTrn^ev. 
 t Tertullian, Repentance, vi, 267. 
 + De Foeniten. chap. vi. 
 
2S'l BAPTLSM. 
 
 walked on the sea/ It is, however, as I think, one thing 
 to be sprinkled [adspergl — as were the eleven], or inter- 
 cepted by the violence of the sea [as was Peter] ; another 
 thing to be baptized in obedience to the discipline of 
 religion." " Now, whether they were baptized in any 
 manner whatever, or whether they continued unwashed 
 {illoti)/' etc. 
 
 1. Here, though some parties "enter the [baptismal] 
 waters," they do it from superstitious ideas of its virtue, 
 but are baptized by sprinkling. 
 
 2. Had the eleven received the sprinkling water volun- 
 tarily, in obedience to the discipline of religion, it would 
 have served for baptism, in his estimation. 
 
 3. Tertullian uses (KUperc/o, lavo, Hugo, perfiuido, as 
 well as mcrgo, for baptism, repeating adspcrgo, sprinkle, a 
 number of times. 
 
 BAFnSM WITH TEARS — WITH BI>()OD. 
 
 4. The water and blood shed from Christ's side were 
 " baptisms." Surely the water that was shed from the side 
 of Christ was not a dipping. The blood that he shed did 
 not dip him. Yet Origen, Tertullian, Ambrose, Athan- 
 asius, John of Damascus, all held them to be baptisms. 
 So did the Syrian fathers. 
 
 Eusebius's Eccles. Hist., a.d. 324, b. iii, ch. 23, records 
 that a backslider was overtaken by the aged John the 
 Evangelist and was reclaimed thus: "Then trembling, lu 
 lamented bitterly, and embracing the old man [John] as he 
 came up, attempted to plead for himself with his lamenta- 
 tions, as much as he was able, as if baptized a second time 
 with his own tears." '^ 
 
 ••■ So also the old Latin version of Eusebius, lacJirymis denuo haj^tiz- 
 aivr, est. 
 
BAPTIDZO IN PATIUSTIC GREEK. 283 
 
 John of Damascus reckons seven baptisms, the last 
 '^seventh, that which is by blood and martyrdom, with 
 which Christ himself for us was baptized." 
 
 Hilary, speaking of baptism, says, '^That which by 
 suffering of martyrdom will wash away [sin] with faithful 
 and devoted blood." 
 
 Athanasius, fourth century, says, '^ For it is proper to 
 know that, in like manner, the fountain of tears by bap- 
 tism cleanses man." Again, ^' Three baptisms, cleansing 
 away all sin whatsoever God has bestowed on the nature 
 of man. I speak of that of water; and again, that by the 
 witness of one's own blood; and, thirdly, that by tears, 
 with which, also, the harlot was cleansed." Chrysostom 
 holds the same. 
 
 PATKISTIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Will our immersion friends tell us how a man is dipped 
 in his own blood? Will they explain how a man is dip- 
 ped in his own tears? Will they resort to the metaphor- 
 ical, and say ^^they were as it were" overwhelmed with 
 grief or suffering? That will not serve for an explana- 
 tion. 
 
 1. They are not metaphorical, but real baptism. 
 
 2. Tliey were held to be sufficient baptisms by those 
 most learned of all the fathers. 
 
 3. Even if we were to assume the absurd position tluit 
 they were metaphorical baptisms, all metaphors are based 
 on realities, and the one must correspond in the main 
 points to the other. If only dipping is baptism, shedding 
 tears, shedding one's blood on himself, can not change lit- 
 eral dip into metaphorical pour or sprinkle. 
 
 But samples from the flithers are enough, and these are 
 
284 BAPTISM. 
 
 given. We do not regard the views of the fathers, espe- 
 cially after superstitions came in like a flood, as of much 
 importance. Their testimony as to facts are more valua- 
 ble by an infinite degree. We have given these mainly 
 to offset the assertions of immersionists as to the views of 
 the fathers. 
 
 FACTS ON THE HISTORY OF BAPTISM. 
 
 1. While water baptism originated in the universal 
 symbolism of water, with innocence, purity as the way to 
 innocency, immersion originated in supersitious views of 
 the efficacy of the baptismal waters. This is seen in the 
 virtue attributed to lustrations or wasliings by all ancient 
 nations.* Ovid says, '' Our old men believe that all wick- 
 edness and all manner of evil may be removed by purifi- 
 cation.'' Again, the Latins held, "All disorder of the 
 soul is washed away by purification of this kind.'^t Ter- 
 tullian, Dc Batismo, says, "At the sacred rites of Isis, 
 or Mithra, they are initiated by a washing (lavacro); 
 they expiate villas, houses, temples, and whole cities, by 
 sprinkling with water carried around. Certainly they are 
 baptized (tinguntur) in the Apollinarian and Eleusonian 
 rites, and they say they do this to obtain regeneration, and 
 to escape the punishment of their perjuries. Also among 
 the ancients, whoever had stained himself with murder ex- 
 piated himself with purifying water.'' Hence, T. tells us 
 of the "medical virtues" water "imbibed" under the con- 
 secration of the priest in his day. " How mighty is the 
 
 * See Demosthenes on the Crown ; Diogenes Lser. 222 ; Plutarch on 
 Diogenes; Ovid's Met., lib. xiv, 950 ; iv, 478; Jer. xi, 23; Porphyry of 
 
 the Egyptians : Tplg rijq ^fiipag ahlovaovro ^y;t:pw. 
 
 tOmnts ejusmodi peturhatio animi placaiione ahluaiiir. 
 
BAPTIDZO IN PATraSTIC GTwEEK. 285 
 
 grace of water ! " '^ All waters, therefore, ... do, after 
 invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanc- 
 tification. . . . They imbibe at the same time the power 
 of sanctifying."* 
 
 ORIGIN OF IMMERSION. 
 
 Theophylact says of those immersed, " For as he who is 
 immersed in the waters and baptized is surrounded on all 
 sides by the waters,^' etc.f Such party — "bathing the 
 whole body, while he who simply receives water [by affu- 
 sion] is not wholly wetted on all places.^' X 
 
 Here you see that by the third and fourth centuries the 
 virtue of baptismal water was established, as Neander 
 shows abundantly in his history, aside from our facts from 
 different sources mainly. 
 
 Dr. Gale quotes Reland to prove that the Mohammedan 
 custom was that " the water must * touch every hair of 
 the body, and the whole skin all over' . . . This manner 
 of washing the whole body is necessary in order to puri- 
 fication" in specified cases (Wall ii, 97). 
 
 1. Up to these times mode never entered into the con- 
 troversy of baptism. It was the motive, the question of 
 sincerity or insincerity alone that was involved, as in No- 
 vatian. But now in Cyprian's day, middle of the third 
 century, the quantity of water, the touching of all parts 
 by the water, began to attract attention. If any part was 
 untouched, sin might lurk there. Hence — 
 
 3. Whenever the cleansing efficacy of the water was 
 
 *De Bap., chap, v, 236, vol. 1. 
 
 t Conant, Bapiizein, pp. 22-3. 
 
 X Conant, 104, for the Greek, 6?iov to eu/ua I3pex(jv, wetting the whole 
 body, while he who merely receives the water — v-ypaivo/j.evov, hugraino- 
 menon — water sprinkled, sprinkled with water. 
 
28() BAPTISM. 
 
 established copious affusions of water in baptism followed. 
 Then the insertion of the party "deep in the Avater" — up 
 to the arms and neck sometimes followed— that the sanc- 
 tifying grace might be "imbibed," while water was copi- 
 ously poured on the head as the baptismal rite. 
 
 4. As yet mode never entered into the essentialness or 
 validity of baptism. The point was to have every part 
 touched by the water. In the extract from Maim on ides 
 this superstition is seen among Jews as well as among the 
 fathers. Had the candidate been dipped repeatedly — im- 
 mersed completely a hundred times — they would have 
 held it invalid for baptism had the subject been so enrobed 
 as to prevent the water from reaching his person. Even 
 as a true symbolism this Avould be correct, showing not 
 mode or action, but contact of the pure water constitutes 
 the baptism. 
 
 Tertullian shows where parties were mersed in water 
 thus ; then the baptism follows : "A man is mersed {mer- 
 sus) in water, and amid the utterance of some few words 
 is baptized {tingatur), and then rises again,'' etc. 
 
 Augustine, next to Jerome the most learned of Latin 
 fathers, is thus cited by Archbishop Kendrick on Bap- 
 tism : " Unless wheat be ground and sprinkled with water, 
 it can not come to that form which is called bread. So 
 you, also, were first ground, as it were, by mystic exor- 
 cisms. [See the superstitions now.] Then was added 
 baptism : Ye were as it were sprinkled, that ye might 
 come to the form of bread."* On this the Arch- 
 bishop says, " St. Augustine remarks [quoting the above — 
 Ssprinkled with water '] . . . This being addressed gener- 
 ally to the faithful, most of whom were solemnly baptized, 
 leads us to infer that even in solemn baptism aspersion 
 
 ■■'• Sermon ccxxviii, ad Inf. de Sacram. 1417. 
 
BAPTTDZO IN PATrvlSTIC (JREKK. 2<^7 
 
 was often used, water being sprinkled on the candidate 
 while he stood deeply immersed'' (Kendrick on Bap., p. 
 156, ed. 1852). 
 
 We quote the above the more because the Catholics 
 have been so misquoted on this question, Bossuet's Jesuit- 
 ical statements being relied on as if worthy of regard. 
 
 Hence Robinson, the great Baptist hero of history, 
 says, "A Greek baptism, where, beside, trine-immersion, 
 snperfnsion is practiced, or a baptism where the laver was 
 too small, and where the body was immersed in the laver, 
 and the head was immersed by superfusion " in the days of 
 8t. Lawrence and Strabo. Hist. Bapt., p. 108. '^Im- 
 mersed by superfusion 'M ! How absurd! He cites St. 
 Lawrence on those who immersed, yet baptized by pour- 
 ing — '' superfusion" ; e. g. the party " was immersed in the 
 waters" while the priest copiously ^' poured the water upon 
 his head";* and this often occurred. In cases often the 
 laver was too small where they immersed to submerge the 
 whole man, and in such cases where " the head could not 
 be mersed," "the water was administered by pouring, the 
 rest of the body by immersion,y so that no part of the man 
 slionld be without the sacred washing." In other cases 
 " they simply poured the water on the heads of those to be 
 baptized." X 
 
 5. The first time merslon appears or immersion as a re- 
 ligious rite is in those superstitious days. Tertullian is 
 the first and only man of his day in North Africa who 
 
 ■••'■ Utpote qui aquis hmnersus erat, benedicit, shiisira urceiim aqua pla- 
 num super ejusdem caput effund'd. Urceus iste ex a;re eiiam nunc ibidem, 
 in sacrario, etc. 
 
 tErgo quia caput mcrgi non potey^at, superfusio aquce adhibebatur, 
 iminersio ad reliqnem corpus, ut mdla pars hominis expers essci sacri 
 lavacri. Ibid. 
 
 X Robinson cites also wliere in trine-immersion in other cases " aquam 
 capitibus baptizandorum superfundunt" etc. 
 
288 BAPTISM. 
 
 names it, and the first time he names it trine-immersion 
 was the rite. Superstitious practices are united with it of 
 a most revolting kind, showing it was all born of super- 
 stition. 
 
 6. The first time we find baptism practiced as a single 
 immersion, as now practiced, is in the History of Sozomen, 
 in the middle of the fourth century. He treats it as an 
 innovation never known before.* No immersionist has 
 given or can give a case where baptism was practiced in 
 all the records and literature of the church till the fourth 
 century after Christ. 
 
 7. Hence no Latin father, in all their voluminous 
 works, is found that during the first two and a half centu- 
 ries of the church, renders baptldzo by immergo, nor a 
 Greek that renders it by hcdaduo, immerse. But after the 
 third century they soon introduce these terms, and they 
 become common. 
 
 8. Where Tertullian uses mergo, mergito, it is not in 
 defining baptldzo. Indeed, when he uses mergo he imme- 
 diately uses tingo (baptize) as expressive of a different 
 idea. Hence, to constitute '^ one baptism '' they used 
 " three immersions " — katadusels. 
 
 9. In all these periods baptism was by aifusion also. 
 Hence — 
 
 10. Not a single father, Latin, Greek, Syriac, or Arabic, 
 for the first three centuries ever refers to Romans vi, 4; 
 Colossians ii, 12, '^Buried by baptism into death," as 
 water baptism, a fact utterly incompatible with the suppo- 
 sition that mode was regarded as essential or that it was 
 water baptism. 
 
 * Sozomen 's Eccles. Hist., chap, xxvi, pp. 282-284. He urges that 
 Eunomius " devised another heresy " — a single immersion, instead of 
 "trine-immersion," It was "an innovation," he a heretic in doing so. 
 See the full quotation in Louisville Debate, pp. 593-4. 
 
BAl»Tll>Z() IN PATlilSTlC GUKEK. 289 
 
 11. In all their disputes over the efficacy of immersion 
 as a sanctifying means, in the third and later centuries, as 
 if a mere sprinkle of water failed to convey as much 
 grace, not once do they question the mode when per- 
 formed by sprinkling, never that of pouring, nor appealed 
 to the meaning of the word, as if among them it necessa- 
 rily implied immersion. They do agree that ^^ more ben- 
 efit is imparted^* where the water, regardless of mode, 
 whether by " mersion " or by " superfusion," comes in 
 contact with " all parts of the body." 
 
 12. All the most ancient baptisteries (none earlier than 
 the third century) ; all ancient and earlier allusions to it ; 
 all picture representations of it in earlier times, sustain 
 affusion. But after all, of what value are the testimonies 
 of the fathers on this subject, after the third century at 
 least or even the second, when the Bible and philology so 
 overwhelmingly demonstrate the truths we hold ? 
 
 19 
 
290 ];aptis:m. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIV. 
 
 Tabal, Hebrew for Baptidzo. 
 
 But we have a source of light still on this subject that 
 is as instructive in philology as it is overwhelming, in 
 proof that our views are infallibly correct on this subject. 
 All scholars and critics are agreed that — 
 
 1. p^if] Tabal (pronounced tavaJ, tabhal), the Hebrew 
 word for baptidzo, occurs sixteen times in the Old Testa- 
 ment, once being in composition. 
 
 2. As Schleusner says, it corresponds to baptidzo, 
 though as Suicer and Beza show, it answers more to 
 rachats, as to use. 
 
 3. It is often translated baj)to in the Greek Scriptures. 
 
 4. It is generally rendered dip in James\s version, 
 though never the equivalent of complete immersion. 
 
 5. It is translated baptidzo (baptize) by the Septuagint 
 (2 Kings V, 14), the version largely used by the apostles. 
 
 6. It is translated baptize constantly by all ancient 
 writers who treated of it, by the lexicons, and is the 
 word niost constantly used for the ancient proselyte bap- 
 tism by Jews.* 
 
 7. Like the classic baptidzo it was not a word of relig- 
 ious import ordinarily till a later day. Once in the Bible 
 it is religiously used — meaning '^ purified^^ — ^^ "Whom Je- 
 hovah hath purified — lustravit^' (Gesenius). 
 
 *Sinceri Thesaurus, vol. 1, art. Baptidzo and 'ma; Wahl's Clavis, 
 ihid.; Beza Annot. Matt, iii ; Trommius's Concor. LXX, art. Bap.; 
 Schleusner, ibid; Louisville Debate, pp. 479, 416-17, etc. 
 
TABHAL, HEBREW FOll IJAI'TIDZO. 291 
 
 8. It is frequently the translation of raehats (VQ^)^ the 
 word immersionists insist always implied ini mergence in 
 the ancient Jewish Targums.* 
 
 9. It is often translated by tseva in the Targnnis, and 
 the immersionists claim this as the word of words for im- 
 merse, whicli M. Stuart freely gives up to them. 
 
 Let us examine the lexicons, then the occurrences of 
 this word, then its root-meaning, in the light of science 
 and of history. The smaller manuals, lexicons of highest 
 repute, are those of J. Simonis, edited by Wetstein, 1757, 
 later by Winer, Stokius, Leigh, J. Buxtorf, 1639, and 
 Gesenius of the present century. They all define tabal 
 exactly alike, same that Buxtorf has demerset, sink down 
 or under as a meaning. These three then give it tabal, 
 ^'to moisten, dip, immerse." f Gesenius once also ren- 
 ders it " purify." :|: 
 
 Hottinger, Hectaglotton, 1661, renders it to moisten, 
 wet, stain, dip, to wash.§ We will expose the blunders 
 and self-contradictions of Gesenius, whom Rabbi Wise 
 clings to, at the end of this chapter. The careless render- 
 ing of Gesenius by Robinson, and the confounding by im- 
 mersionists of the partial dip, in the Pentateuch, to moisten 
 a bunch of hyssop, etc. with a total immersion, has caused 
 confusion here.^ The word immerse in Hebrew — tabha 
 (r2*J) — all the lexicons define by immerse (immergo), 
 
 * It is so rendered 2 Kings v, 10. 
 
 tTinxit, iniinxit, imynersit. Buxtorf: Also demersit. 
 
 % Liistravit, Thesaurus sub voce Tebaliahu. 
 
 lEtymologicum Orientate Lex. Harmonicum Hectaglotton, Heb., Chal., 
 Syr., Arab., Samaritanse, ^thiopicse, Talmudico— Robinicse, a Jab. Henr. 
 Hottengero, MDCLXI. The ''abluere," wash, refers simply to rab- 
 binic and Chaldaic use. 
 
 ^Sce Louisville Debate, pp. 436-7, 473-4, as examples, as if dip, dip 
 in, and immerse were exactly the same. If so, whi/ the three words, 
 and why the tirtxit, infinxif. vnmersit ? 
 
292 BAPTISM. 
 
 promptly, never by trngo, which shows a marked distinc- 
 tion. Dip is a derivative meaning of tingo as it is of 
 bapto, tabal, etc. But that we may see who is correct as 
 to the meaning intended by the lexicographers, let us ap- 
 peal to the great folio works they have left us, wherein 
 they elaborately explain the whole matter, and we will be 
 left in no doubt. 
 
 THE GREAT STANDAED FOLIO LEXICONS. 
 
 1. We introduce the leader of this august tribunal, 
 the illustrious Schindler, whom Dr. Leigh, indorsing other 
 great names, calls "the greatest scholar in Christendom.'^ 
 His lexicon, Pentaglotton, 1612, thus deposes on ^* tabal, 
 Chaldee, tebal: to moisten, dip, sink, immerse for the 
 purpose of wetting or cleansing, sink down or under. In 
 such wise (thus), to wash, as the thing is not made clean, 
 but merely touches the liquid either in whole or in part, 
 to baptize.'''*' 
 
 2. Buxtorf, usually styled "the Prince of Hebrew 
 scholars," so often quoted by inimersionists as their cham- 
 pion, thus defines it in his great folio, the result of his 
 life's labor. It is only his manual quoted in the Louis- 
 ville Debate, pages 450 and 675. Tabal, j to moisten, 
 
 •••■ Lexicons Pentaglotton, Hebraicum, Chaldaicum, Syriacum, Tal. — 
 Rab. et Arabicum, professor ancient languages in the principal institu- 
 tions of Germany, MDCXII. '^5.^, Chal. '^rp tebal, tinxit, intinxit, mer- 
 sit, immersit, tingendi aut dbluendi gratia, deniersit ; ita lavit, ui res non 
 tnundetur, sed ta.ntum attingat himiorem vel totam vel exparte, haptizavit. 
 
 tJ. Biixtorfii Lexicon Chal. et Rah. opus xxx annorum, Basilece 
 MDCXXXIX. Tehal, tingcre, intingere, dem. im, intingi, im, Rab- 
 bi?iis usurpatiir pro Lavare se, abluere aliquid in aqua. Ahlutio aidem est 
 T>cl Vasornni, vel hominum. Honi.inurn abhitio fiehnt i^nmersione corporis 
 tatius in aquas. Et htnc . . . ita ut res abluenda ab aliquid ei aducereus 
 non totn ahhiaiui\ et ab aqua cQnlingatur. Sedar Tatiareth, Bctza, folio, 
 
TABHAL, HEBKEW FOR BAPTIDZO. 293 
 
 to dip, sink down, immerse, be dipped, immersed. It is 
 used by the rabbins for to wash oneself, to cleanse any 
 thing in water. But the washing is of the vessels or men. 
 The washing of men — persons — may be accomplished by 
 immersing the wliole body in Avater. The washing of ves- 
 sels also hath its own peculiar regulations. And here the 
 rabbins are very careful, and notice the minutest matters^ 
 that pertain to the purification which they accomplisli in 
 the Avashing, so that the object to be cleansed from any 
 thing adhering to it is not Avashed all over, but sprin- 
 kled with the Avater." He then quotes Ledar Taharoth, 
 that they "cleanse (tabal) all things before the Sabbath.'^ 
 
 3. Stokius is not a folio, but stands so high with Mr. 
 A. Campbell Ave notice him. Defining it quite as the 
 manuals, and as equivalent to hapto and baptidzo, he adds, 
 "So that it touches (or is touched Avith) the moisture 
 (liquid) in AAdiole or barely in part,'' etc.^'' 
 
 4. Ed. Leigh, Critica Sacra. This great scholar de- 
 fines it as the rest above, adding, "The object is not puri- 
 fied, but merely touched Avith the liquid either wholly or 
 partly, to baptize." f 
 
 5. Castell. We come noAV to quote the largest and 
 most remarkable Oriental lexicon that has ever been com- 
 piled, in Avhich all the Avords in the Hebrew, Chaldee, 
 Syriac, Samaritan, ^thiopic, Arabic, and Persic manu- 
 scripts, as Avell as printed books in Walton's famous Poly- 
 glott, are contained, by Edmund Castell, S.T.D., Lon- 
 don, 1669. This immense folio in tAvo volumes, contain- 
 ing forty-six hundred and twenty-tAvo immense pages was 
 172. " Contingaiur" is compounded of con — with, and tango — to touch. 
 It is rendered besprinkle by the lexicons also. 
 
 * Ut attmgat humorem ex toto, aut saltern exparte, Clavis Heh., etc. 
 '\Res non mundetur, seel tantuni attiyigat hwnore vel tota, vel parte, 
 baptizavit. This is not a folio, but most eminent critic. 
 
294 BAPTISM. 
 
 the result of the labors of nineteen of the ablest scholars 
 and critics in the world at the time, employed on it seven- 
 teen years, aggregating over three hundred years' labor, 
 allowing for the death of some before finishing the work. 
 Native Jews, rabbis, Arabs, and such men as Lightfoot, 
 AYansleb, Murry, Beveridge, assisted in the work. Being 
 thus assisted he excels all others in accuracy and research, 
 up to that period, and he had before him the results of 
 Schindler, Buxtorf, Walton, and Golius, etc. Hence it is 
 equivalent to nineteen lexicons, made and condensed by 
 nineteen authors so renowned. - 
 
 prj] tabhal, " to moisten, dip, sink down, immerse, 
 (English, dip or dabble), baptize. It differs from rachats 
 (wash) because it is a washing to purify an object. Dip- 
 ping, but it merely touches the object to [or with] the 
 liquid, either in part or in whole.'^ Kabbi David Kimchi, 
 Gen. xxxvii, 31, etc. 
 
 "Chaldee, tebal, same as the Hebrew, where the rabbins 
 use it for to wash oneself, cleanse any thing in water. But 
 the washing is either of vessels or of men ; later it was by 
 the immersion of the whole body in water, but not always. 
 Pocock, P.M. No. 390, etc.; Rabbi Levi, Sept., etc.; 
 Rabbi Solomon." * 
 
 In the face of all this immersionists will say, as Elder 
 Wilkes does,t that ^' it never means to wet or moisten, not 
 once; it never means to wash, but it alicays means to i«i- 
 merse.''^ Italics his. 
 
 *^2s2, ilnxif, hit , dem. im. (Angl. to dippe or dabble) haptizavit: dif- 
 fert a ^'J^ quod lotio sit ad rem mundandurti : Intinciio, autem retn hu- 
 niidam coniingnt tantum, vel exparte, vel tot(tm. R. Dav. (Gen. xxxvii, 
 31, etc.). 
 
 Chal., ^^ip^ i_ q^ j^gj^ {}}_ Jiah. Lavit se, ahllut aliquid in aqua. Ablu- 
 tio autem est, vel vasorum., vel hominum,; posterior sit immersione corpo- 
 ris totius in aqua; at non semper (Pocock, P. M. No. 390, etc. ; R. Levi, 
 8cpt , Hauct. p. Tes. R. Sol). t Louisville Debate, p. 453. 
 
TABHAL, HEBREW FOR BAPTIDZO. 295 
 
 6. Fiirst. We now quote the latest and most scientific 
 Hebraist that has lived for ages, Rabbi Fiirst. 
 
 The greatest Hebrew lexicon ev^er yet produced, re- 
 stricted to the Hebrew and a few Chaldee verses in the He- 
 brew Bible, as well as the only one yet that has any claim 
 to a correct analysis of the root-meaning of words, is by 
 the great Jewish rabbi, Julius Fiirst, 1840, and his per- 
 fected lexicon of a much later date — last edition 1867/'' 
 
 * On the fluctuations of Hebrew lexicography, the following facts 
 presented by the learned Havernick, and fully vindicated b}^ Delitzsch, 
 Hupfeld, and Ewald, later by Fiirst, no scholar can gainsay: "A Gen- 
 eral Historico-critical Introduction to the Old Testament, by H. A. Ch. 
 Havernick, late teacher of theology in the University of Konigsburg, 
 MDCCCLII (1852)." This is held by scholars to be the best introduc- 
 tion to the Old Testament ever produced. Page 221, he shows the dif- 
 ferent systems espoused to develop the study of the Hebrew language. 
 *'The formal conception of the stems " was an important point— all im- 
 portant. " Both (schools) set out from the principle that the radices 
 (roots) of the Hebrew are biliterce (two radical letters forming the ba.^e 
 of the word), and that the grand meaning of the biliterge must be 
 evolved from the meaning of the letters composing it." He shows that 
 Danz founded the best later school. After Ch. B. Michaelis and Storr 
 "there . . . prevailed . . . a certain em^iricis;/i which is to be viewed in 
 relation to the earlier as a retrogression in the method of investigation, 
 and by which penetration into the Hebrew was little furthered. To 
 such an empirical mode of treatment, in opposition even to what had 
 been before attempted, did Vater yield himself. However distinguished 
 for careful collecting of materials and tasteful arrangements are the 
 lexical and grammatical works of Gesenius, they are, nevertheless, con- 
 fined to this EMPIRICAL STANDPOINT," 223-4, " ' By Ewald's Kritische 
 Grammatik' this was for the first time assaulted, and a scientifie investi- 
 gation of the language, proceeding upon the proper laws of speech, and 
 placed upon a footing of due harmony with the historical appearance 
 and development of the language, was entered upon. His efforts and 
 those of Hupfeld have thus once more begun to create positively an 
 epoch in the study of Hebrew, an advance which is also beginning, at 
 least, to make itself apparent in the lexical department." " Buxtorf 
 still remains the eompletest compilation of lexical and grammatical 
 matter here, aaid there is still wanting a genuinely scientific and in- 
 dependent, even iji the grammars of the J. D. Michaelis, Winer (He 
 
296 BAPTISM. 
 
 The first is a great folio, with complete concordance. The 
 one in German (lexicon), the other in Latin : 
 
 Fiirst: Tahal, to moisten, to wet, to sprinkle; to im- 
 merse. The root is bat. Compare the words derived from 
 the same root with kindred meanings — to flow, drop down, 
 pour, pour water on, stream forth, sprinkle. Septuagint, 
 baptein, baptidzein, molunein,^'^ 
 
 In his later lexicon, where he brings out all the results 
 of his labors, 1867, this distinguished Jewish professor, of 
 Leipzig, thus defines tabal, to baptize; ^^To moisten, to 
 sprinkle, rigare, tingere ; therefore to dip, to immerse. 
 . . . The fundamental signification of the stem is "to 
 moisten, to besprinkle." 
 
 Elder Wilkes, and some writers following him, in his 
 last speech, to which I had no reply, says, page 675 f (Lou. 
 Debate), '^ Is it not singular that he (Fiirst) should say it 
 means to moisten, to sprinkle, and therefore to dip or im- 
 merse?" He urges, then, that there must be some error 
 here. It would be strange indeed; but Elder Wilkes 
 ought to have known that it was not true, nor should he 
 have waited till his last speech to say so, lest it might be 
 
 brew older works), and others." I have had Hupfeld's work some four- 
 teen ycais— the ablest yet out. Of him he says, "In more recent 
 times they (these principles) have found, /or the first time, a worthy 
 critic in Hupfeld " (Note, page 222). Now, as Ewald and Hupfeld 
 brought oat the true principles of Hebrew study, and demolished the 
 empirical system of Gesenius, Fiirst takes up their results and brings 
 them out in all their force, and makes a new era again in Hebrew study. 
 The far-fetched and utterly silly analogies of Gesenius are crushed, and 
 the true laws for discovering the root established. 
 
 * * -T' ''''d'^^'c, tingere, perfundere (German edition, begiessen), immer- 
 (jcre. Radix est bal -2... compara modo verba eadem de radice orta 
 ahal, bal, zabel, shabal, etc. 
 
 t Page 680, Mr. "Wilkes says again, " I know it does not make any 
 sense to say that the word iaval means 'to sprinkle or pour,' and there- 
 fore to immerse, 'to dip.' That is not good sense." Who soys it? . . . 
 Xi)t Fnr.<t. as />is own quotation shows. 
 
TABHAL, HEBIIEW FOK BAPTIDZO. 297 
 
 corrected. Fiirst copies his Latin definition, and the 
 word that W. says always means dip, immerse, and from 
 which dip is developed — tingere, thus: rigare, linger e; 
 therefore to dip, etc.; i. e. as it means tingere, so it comes 
 to mean to dip. See above where it is just as in his 
 lexicon. 
 
 Let us sum up now. 
 
 1. All give moisten, wet, as the most common meaning. 
 
 2. All give immerse as a derivative, and not primary 
 meaning. Not one gives it as a primary meaning. 
 
 3. All of the great masters say that if the object 
 merely touches or is touched by the liquid or water it 
 baptizes it. 
 
 4. That immersion was a mode by which Jews bap- 
 tized sometimes, not always; and it was a later practice 
 than by affusion or barely being touched {ab aqua) by the 
 water. Buxtorf and Castell. 
 
 5. That the primary meaning of the word is to besprin- 
 kle, sustained by all words of the same root. 
 
 6. Gesenius, the great immersionist lexicographer, as- 
 sumes, first, that its root is the same Avith deuo in Greek, 
 to bedew, sprinkle, shed forth; second, that the root, 
 meaning immerse never has such meaning in all Bible 
 literature.* He never renders it immerse, but dip (m- 
 tingo), as well as ^^to purify." 
 
 * Gesenius, 1833-4, Thesaurus, 1835-6, traces ^5?J, tabha, immerse, 
 and ^5.-^, iabal, tahhnl, to the same root — 2^ [tab). Eabbi Wise, of Ohio, 
 follows him in a published letter, and misquotes and utterly tortures 
 Fiirst's hmguage, yet admits it dips rvholly or partly. Gesenius says ^s^ 
 is the same as " Hebrew and Arabic ^'=^," and adds, " The primary 
 syllable is D^ [tah) . . . depth, and immersion. Compare Goth. Diiip, 
 Engl, deep, Ger. tief ; also, Goth, daujen, Ger. tavfen, Engl, dip; Gr. 
 6h'TG) {dujyto), and softened Sevo) (deuo)." Such jargon is absolutely a 
 
298 BAPTISM. 
 
 7. Castell's nineteen lexicographers, Stokius, Leigh, 
 Schindler, Buxtorf, and Furst, equivalent to twenty-four, 
 twenty-three of whom are the greatest ever known. Add 
 Rabbi Kirachi, who defines it the same way, and in tenth 
 century, whom Gesenius exalts above all, we have twenty- 
 five with us, and Gesenius thrown in. 
 
 Dr. Barnes is often quoted by immersionists. On 
 tabhal he says in his Notes on Matthew iii, 6 (vol. 1), 
 where he takes it up from baptldzo, ''In none of these 
 
 burlesque. But if correct, it destroys the whole immersion fabric. Aei^w, 
 which he holds is same root with tab, we have seen means to bedew, 
 sprinkle, shed upon," etc. So we are sustained, and might stop, But 
 we will not let him and his admirers oflf so easily, Gesenius says under 
 ^1-^ tcuncB, to he or become unclean, hnpurc, to he defiled, 2>olluted. He 
 renders tabhal, tinxit, intinxit, immersit, and " lustravit" under its com- 
 position form. Syriac, tama, to pollute . . . The primary idea is that 
 of immersing. See in ]'^^ taman. (a) Chiefly spoken of Levitical un- 
 cleanness, both of persons and animals (i. e. animals not to be eaten. 
 See Lev. xi, 1-31), and also of things, as buildings, vessels, etc. Twice 
 does Gesenius assert that " the primary idea is that of immersing,'" etc., 
 s})eaking of D*J as the root. Yet he can not, and he does not, adduce a 
 single word that has tab as the root that ever means to immerse, dip, or 
 piunge. On the contrary, out of over one hundred and fifty references 
 which he gives himself, he never renders it immerse or dip; nor dared 
 he do so. He renders it "defile, pollute, profane, e. g. the name of God 
 ( Ez. xliii, 7, 8 ); the sanctuary ( Lev. xv, 31 ; Jer. vii, 30) ; a land by 
 wickedness and idolatry (Num. xxxv, 34; Jer. ii, 7," etc.). The texts 
 show that it was often done by touching, as a dead body (Lev. xi, 24), 
 "toucheth the'carcass," etc. (v. 26), " toucheth," etc. Here then is the 
 root of his favorite word that means, primarily, "to immerse." Yet 
 7iever means to immerse in a single place in all Hebrew literature. On 
 the contrary, he shows that it is done in most cases by a mere touch, in 
 many by affusion, in some by sprinkling, as in case of blood, or water 
 that is unclean, etc. He is wild in his idea of nazah, getting it from 
 Arabic naza, where it is clearly the same with the Arabic natzach, to 
 sprinkle; ^thiopic, naza.ch. Lastly, Gesenius getting all his support 
 from Indo-European languages, where in his greatest Essay on Phi- 
 lology ho utterly repudiates that source as a reliable aid (see it also in 
 the Bib. Repos ,1833) is utt(>rly inconsistent. We will further test the 
 root tab di recti v, and see the result. 
 
IIEBIIEW Foil BAPTIDZO. 299 
 
 fifteen cases [he misses one] can it be sb.own that the 
 meaning of the word is to immerse entirely. But in 
 nearly all the cases the notion of applying the water to 
 k part only of the person or object, though it was by 
 dipping, is necessarily to be supposed." 
 
 Lightfoot, next to Pocock and Fiirst, of all the scholars 
 in centuries past was the best versed in rabbinic litera- 
 ture. In the famous and often misstated discussions of 
 the Assembly, 1643, it is stated in his life that one man 
 asserted that this word, pronounced in later times tebeUah 
 (baptism), ^Mmports a dipping overhead." Lightfoot 
 answered him '^ and proved the contrary, first, from a 
 passage of Aben Ezra on Genesis xxxviii [xxxvii, 31]; 
 second, from Rabbi Solomon Jarchi, who, in his commen- 
 tary on Exodus xxiv, saith that Israel entered into cove- 
 nant with sprinkling of blood and Taybelah [i. e. tebalj 
 baptism], which the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews 
 expoundeth by sprinkling (Hebrew ix. . . In conclusion, 
 he proposed to that Assembly to show him in all the Old 
 Testament any one instance where the word used de sacris 
 et in actu transeunte implied any more than sprinkling." 
 
 All that Wetstein, Alting, Meyer, etc. have on this 
 question is taken from the above masters. Who, then, 
 best knew of the matter? 
 
 Gesenius made a futile effort to run tab, the word he 
 erroneously assumes to be the root of tabaly through 
 the Aryan tongues into dauhj dob, daupian, etc., doopar, 
 when in the Semitic families, so much nearer home, dub, 
 dob, daba would have come far nearer giving the truth 
 and science of his dip. 2'n (dub) in Chaldee, to flow, 
 flow down, to rain (bedew); Syriac, dob, make wet, flow; 
 Samaritan, to flow; Arabic, moisten, make wet.* Kin- 
 
 ■■'Fiuxii, defflux'd, proJIt<xit, roravit, Uquefecit, tlie latter repeated over 
 and again. 
 
300 BAPTISM. 
 
 dred to it, same word strengthened, is duph, dap ; Arabic, 
 dapa, or dijxi, to make wet,''^ macerate. 
 
 As Gesenius has been so earnestly pressed into service 
 by Elder Wilkes, etc. we will cite what he says in his 
 famous and very learned essay on Sources of Hebrew 
 Philology and Lexicography, to show again his defective 
 and contradictory statements: ^'3. But the most impor- 
 tant by far of all the languages kindred to the Hebrew, 
 and in every respect the most fertile source of Hebrew 
 etymology and lexicography, is the Arabic, one of the 
 richest and most cultivated, and also in its literary history 
 one of the most important languages in the Avorld.'' 
 *^The Arabic the best and surest help.^f He gives ^Svords 
 which stand in connection with the Indian tongues," i. e. 
 Aryan branches, as simply a few words in music and 
 natural history. Yet on tabal he violates all this, and 
 seeks all liis help in Aryan languages and ignores the 
 Arabic that was full of help on that very root. In the 
 late Webster's Dictionary all this folly is copied, and they 
 give for dip, ^' Ger. dopen, Sw. dopa^ D. doopen.^^ Web- 
 ster never put it there of course; they state that fact in 
 the introduction. Ed. 1878. J 
 
 *Humectavit, maceravit. 
 
 tSee also more in his "Arabische Sprache " and **Arabische Liter- 
 atur " in Ersch and Gruben's Encyc. ; Eichorn, "Wachler, Bib. Kepos., 
 1833. 
 
 J Why did they not then cite the Arabic dipa, or dapa, dup, etc.? 
 
PRIMARY MEANING. r>01 
 
 CHAPTER XXV, 
 
 P R I -M A R Y M E A N I N G . 
 
 Let us now examine as to the primary meaning of the 
 term baptize as it occurs in Semitic languages, the apos- 
 tles being Hebrews. 
 
 In religious use words longest retain their primary 
 meaning. In Genesis the word baptize first occurs, and 
 we have seen it is in the sense of sprinkle. We now pro- 
 pose to apply to ^2*J tubal (pronounced taval) the rules 
 and laws by which the true meanings, and primary mean- 
 ings, of all words are now found by philological scientists. 
 Before we do this let us hear A. Campbell on the rules 
 applied : " Derivative words legally inherit the specific 
 though not necessarily the figurative meaning of their 
 natural progenitors, and never can so far alienate from 
 themselves that peculiar significance as to indicate any 
 action specifically different from that indicated from the 
 parent stock. [We have seen how utterly void is this in 
 our examples of words meaning to sprinkle, pour, dip, 
 immerse, etc.] Indeed (continues he), all inflexions of 
 words, with their sometimes numerous and various fam- 
 ilies of descendants, are but modifications of one and the 
 same generic or specific idea.'' He then runs one word, 
 "dip," through such inflexions and says, emphasizing 
 every word, "Wherever the radical syllable (bap) is found 
 the radical idea is in it" (Chris. Baptism, pp. 119, 120). 
 That U, as Mr. Campbell applies this to io^^fo and bap- 
 
;)()2 ]iAPTis>r. 
 
 tidzo, if we select all the words compounded or derived 
 from the root bcqyto — its radical idea, the root being bap 
 with the force of ^'dip'^ — we will find dip in every such 
 word. 
 
 We have bajjto, baptos, baptce, embapto, baptidzo, embap- 
 ildzo, hata-baptidzo, anabaptidzo, baptismos, baptlsma, bap-, 
 tisis, baptista?s, with all possible inflexions — ebaphon, eba^ 
 phce, bammati, bebamnienon ; the letter p exchanged for an 
 m, to be resumed again. In all these is the root ba]); 
 hence always the idea of dip. So reasons the immersion- 
 ist. We are not now objecting to all this as a rule, but 
 deny the dip as the primary idea. We now test baptize 
 in Hebrew where it occurs more than one thousand years 
 before we come up with it in the Greek any where. As 
 we gave above thirteen or fourteen variations of baj:), the 
 root, let us select about an equal number of variations of 
 the root of the Hebrew word baptize (^5.^ tabal), Bal 
 is the root of the word. Now what is the prevailing 
 '^ idea^' of this root of the word in Hebrew? Fortunately 
 in Hebrew we have great light here in kindred tongues 
 in which the same root occurs in many words, with tlie 
 same meaning, while unfortunately in the kindred tongues 
 to the Greek, Latin, and other Indo-European tongues, 
 no assistance has been found, no kindred root.* In the 
 Arabic, Gesenius and all philologists agree is our greatest 
 help to critically learn the Hebrew and understand the 
 i> cuius of it. 
 
 In Arabic we select the root itself — 
 
 1. '^3 {bal, bala). Freytag thus defines bal: "To mois- 
 ten, and especially to make wet or soft by sprinkling 
 
 ■••• It is to be hoped research in the Sanskrit may find the root of this 
 word. We feel perfectly certain if it is found it will be as in the 
 Hebrew and other languao;es. 
 
PI i nr A 1 i Y M E A X I N <j . ;)():>, 
 
 or light affusion of liquid. VIII to bedew, be made 
 wet." * 
 
 Castell: '' Bal, to moisten, and especially to make wet 
 or soft by sprinkling/^ i. e. water. Lorshbach's Syriac 
 Thesaurus — bal-confudit, to pour together. 
 
 2. Arabic, 6a/-a-/a, same root. Schindler: To sprinkle, 
 make wet.f Gesenius : To moisten, to make wet by affu- 
 sion of water [liquid], to sprinkle. % 
 
 3. Bahala (root hal, Gesenius). Buxtorf, Gesenius, 
 Castell, all/^ sprinkle." § 
 
 4. "^22 {hal-cd). This word in the Arabic Bible is the 
 translation of [id-rco {bapto), and throws a flood of liglit 
 on all this question from a philological standpoint. It 
 bears exactly the primary relation to baptize in Hebrew 
 that hapto does in Greek. Let us then give it at length 
 as it is so directly and essentially related to baptism. 
 Leigh in his Critica Sacra gives "to pour, sprinkle."^ 
 Castell: ''To be sprinkled, to sprinkle." Schindler: ''To 
 ])our, besprinkle, sprinkle." Gesenius: "To sprinkle, to 
 moisten, make wet by affusion of water, sprinkle." But 
 it does not stop with that meaning. It goes on and de- 
 velops the following: "To sprinkle, make wet, moisten, 
 dip, to water, make wet (Luke vii, 38, 44)," (equal to 
 brecho) (Ps. vi, 7, (6) ; Luke xvi, 24, rendered from (/3drr^ 
 i/wdTZTto) bapto, embapto ; John xiii, 26, dip. It is repeat- 
 edly used for " dip," "dip in." 
 
 5. ^P^ naphal, na-bal, root bal. Targum, "pour out" 
 {effundo, Castell). 
 
 '^Madeficit, et spec, rigavit maceravU ve asperso aid leviier affuso liU" 
 more. VIII. Maduit^ rigatus fuit. 
 
 tPerfudit, humectavit. 
 
 X Rigavit, affuso humor e madejicit, consjoersit. 
 
 gEach gives " conspersit. ' 
 
 ^Conspersit; Castell, Perfudit, conspersit; Schindler, Fudit, perfu* 
 dlt, eonspersif ; Oosenius. same as? No. 8 quoted. So Preytag, 
 
304 ]JAPTI.SM. 
 
 6. "^r? Sha-bal, " to flow, to pour/' Furst, Arabic, '' to 
 rain, flow down." 
 
 7. TiJ ^6a/, "rain/' (Castell, Arabic), "moist." 
 
 8. '"'2 BAL, "rain." 
 
 9. TiD bid {hat), "to flow, stream forth copiously." 
 Fiirst, etc. 
 
 10. Mahal Arabic, ma-BAL-o, " to flow copiously, to 
 moisten." 
 
 11. 1?^ ya-BAEL, bal, the root, "to flow, to stream." 
 Fiirst. 
 
 12. '^2"^ iva-hal, Arab, to pour rain, to rain copiously 
 and vehemently ; rain.'^ 
 
 13. ^il^ 2/a-BAL, "to flow, to stream, to pour, drop 
 down, moisten." Fiirst. 
 
 Thus we see that affusion is in every word that has the 
 root of the word baptize. More evidence is useless. Let 
 us now test tab (2*j), Gesenius's idea of the root, and see 
 if it is immerse. Wc have seen that his assumptions sus- 
 tain us, but we do not want to be sustained by error. His 
 position, too, crushes the immersion theory, as it makes 
 " bedew," etc. come from immerse. 
 
 Let us now take the words that have tab as their root, 
 and see the meaning of such, Gesenius being one of the 
 prominent judges. 
 
 1. Ratab (^i^"^), Gesenius defines thus: "To be wet, 
 moisten with rain (Tob. xxiv, 8), also with sap . . . espec- 
 [ially] of the moisture of juices of plants," etc. 
 
 2. Natab (^55"^), ^thiopic, same as the Hebrew shalab,-\ 
 to distill or shed drops, as dew-Avater, etc. 
 
 3. Nataph, Tab is the root — tab-taph: "To drop, fall 
 in drops, to distill. ... In a similar manner the Arabs 
 
 *Im,brem effudit, copiose et vekemenier pluit . . . imber (Castell). 
 t Castell and Piirst, disiillavii guUa. Hepiaglotton, 2283. 
 
PRIMARY MEAXIXG, 305 
 
 transfer the idea of watering, irrigating" [or wet], etc. 
 (Gesenius.) 
 
 4. Zah, zub, is kindred to tab, with kindred meanings, 
 to flow, of water, blood, etc. 
 
 5. f]1iJ Tsuph. In this word the ts stand for t, and 
 tab is the root. It means "to pour, pour out, irrigate, 
 flow.'' 
 
 6. Shataph, tab the root, "to gush or pour out'' (Ge- 
 senius). This word comes to mean to immerse in later 
 literature. We pass the blunders of Mr. Wilkes on the 
 accusative, as the meaning of the word determines 
 whether we regard it as accusative or dative in all these 
 texts.* 
 
 *■ Not one case where tahhal occurs has the noun the signs of the 
 accusative. They are dative or accusative as the sense may require. 
 
 20 
 
306 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVI. 
 
 T A B H A L . 
 
 Seeing in the last chapter that all Hebrew lexicogra- 
 phers sustain the position that to besprinkle or touch even 
 the person with water, baptizes, let us examine this word 
 in the Bible and rabbinic Hebrew. It occurs sixteen 
 times in the Bible. In our English version, which, as 
 the Baptists truly say, is only a revision of a former ver- 
 sion — Tyndale, 1526-1534 — made by iramersionists, and 
 when Hebrew and Greek were but poorly understood as 
 to philological principles, it is rendered dip in all the 
 places where it occurs as a verb. Of it Mr. Wilkes (Lou- 
 isville Debate p. 453), says, "It always means to immerse J^ 
 Italics his. Again, "The word taval (tabhal) is used six- 
 teen times in the Hebrew Bible,* and every time it means 
 IMMERSION." Now, what do Mr. W. and his colaborers in 
 immersion mean by immerse? Evidently to sink clear 
 and completely under the element, so that every part is 
 enveloped, covered. That is what they mean. Now, a 
 careful examination of each, of all, its occurrences will show 
 and demonstrate that it never means immerse nor dip in 
 their sense of that word. A few passages excepted, say 
 about three, as Job viii, 31, the object to be obtained by 
 tabhal was not dip in any sense, while immersion is wholly 
 
 ■•••It occurs sixteen times tis noun and verb, thus: Leviticus x, 6, 17 
 ix, 9; xiv, 6, 16, 54; Numbers xix, 18; Euth ii, 14; Exodus xii, 22 
 Deuteronomy xxxiii, 24; Job ix, 31; 1 Samuel xiv, 27; 2 Kings v, 14 
 viii, 15; Joshua iii, 15; Genesis xxxvii, 31. 
 
TAIiHAL. 307 
 
 out of the question in every case. The only object of the 
 word, in about thirteen of the places where it occurs, Avas 
 to wet the object slightly, moisten, saturate so as to sprin- 
 kle objects. In some of these cases a partial dip would be 
 most natural, and was the process, but in no case was there 
 un immersion. Let us examine a few. 
 
 1. In Exodus xii, 22, the blood is used to saturate, or 
 moisten the bunch of hyssop. No mode is involved. The 
 bunch of hyssop most naturally would be ^' touched to '^ 
 the blood, moistened Avith it, very partially dipped. 
 
 2. In Leviticus iv, 6, 17, the priest was to moisten his 
 linger with the blood. A "mere touch" would do this — 
 any contact. The finger in the case could not be im- 
 mersed. In Exodus xii, 22; Leviticus iv, 17, the Greek 
 is with, a2:)o, by means of the blood ; Hebrew min — not in. 
 This utterly forbids dip, as immersionists say apo " helps 
 out" of the water (A, C). Or does apo mean 'Mnto" and 
 "out of" both, just as it suits? It means neither of them. 
 
 In Leviticus xiv, 6, it is impossible that "the living 
 bird, and the cedar wood, and the scarlet, and the hyssop" 
 should all be immersed "in the blood of the bird that was 
 killed." It was done thus: "A stick of cedar wood was 
 bound to a bunch of hyssop by a scarlet ribbon, and the 
 living bird was to be attached to it; that when they dipped 
 the branches in the water the tail of the bird might be 
 moistened, but not the head nor the wings, that it might 
 not be impeded in its flight when let loose."* The mois- 
 tening of a part of the bird was baptizing the bird. In 
 verse 51 he was to baptize the cedar wood, hyssop, scarlet, 
 and living bird (b'dom) with the blood of the slain bird, 
 and "with the running water" (Heb.). Only a part of 
 the bird was made wet, yet the bird was baptized. 
 * Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown's Commentary on Leviticus xiv, 6. 
 
308 BAPTISM. 
 
 FIRST OCCURRENCE ON RECORD OF BAPTISM. 
 
 In Genesis xxxvii, 31, is the first occurrence in the 
 world of a baptism. As it is the oldest document in the 
 world by a thousand years (save other Bible records), and 
 older than any of the Bible occurrences by from four hun- 
 dred to five hundred years, it is very important as showing 
 the earlier and primary meaning of the word : 
 
 ^^And they took Joseph^s coat, and killed a kid of the 
 goats, and dipped the coat in the blood ; and they sent the 
 coat of many colors, and they brought it to their father '^ 
 . . . (verse 33). ^^And he knew the coat; it is my son's 
 coat; an evil beast hath devoured him."* The Targum 
 of Onkelos reads as the Hebrew, tabal, baptized Avith 
 blood. 
 
 1. The object in baptizing this toga or outward cloak 
 was to impress the father that a wild beast had slain 
 Joseph. 
 
 2. In that day men were quick to detect, reading less 
 than we, and thrown constantly upon their instincts and 
 self-protection. Nor Avas Jacob noted for stupidity by 
 any means. What beast or animal would submerge the 
 outer garment in one's blood in slaying him ? It would 
 be rent off first of all and receive but little of the blood 
 comparatively. These men showed great cunning, and 
 would not make the blunder of immersing the coat. 
 
 3. The father, just as they intended, knew the coat ^^of 
 many colors." If submerged in blood how many colors 
 would it have had ? 
 
 4. The ancient versions take the same view, and are 
 above all authorities on the meaning of the word. 
 
 *C12 .n:nrri".nX ••■'2t3*]_ ^ayyitbelu (tabhal) eth-ha1<uio-neth baddam 
 — and baptized— sprinkled — the coat with the blood. 
 
TABHAL. 309 
 
 (1) The Greek used by the apostles translate it sprin- 
 kle,'*^ stain, i. e. by sprinkling. H. Stephanus says, "The 
 primary meaning (of molunebi) is to sprinkle.'^ f 
 
 (2) The Targum of Jacob Tawus renders it "bedashed,'^ 
 i. e. sprinkled with blood. 
 
 (3) The Latin Vulgate (tingo), stained with blood. 
 
 But the old Pesbito-Syriac, the oldest and purest ver- 
 sion and most literal in the world, translates it "sprinkle.^' 
 It reads t ("''^.?.^5) phalpheluh [or palpeluh, soft], sprin- 
 kled with blood. It is remarkable that here this old, in- 
 valuable version renders baptize by the other word avc 
 gave, hakd, for its root is bed, as Gesenius and Fiirst show, 
 and is thus rendered by Buxtorf in his folio lexicon 
 of rabbinic Hebrew and Chaldee; for the Chaldee and 
 Syriac are the same word, same meaning. 
 
 ?2?D i^phalphael)y conspergere ; et conspersl pulvere glo- 
 riain meam (phcdphael) (Job xvi, 15) — "I have sprinkled 
 my head {horns, glory, is the Hebrew) with dust.'^ 
 
 Esther iv, 1 : "And sprinkled {conspjersus, plialphael) 
 his head with ashes.'' Gesenius's Thesaurus: "Bal-cd, 
 same as Chaldee 71C, ^5?^^ phalphal, conspersit ; Syriac, 
 phalphal conspersit; Chaldee and Syriac, to sprinkle." 
 
 •=■ Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 530) has only lliis answer to all these facts, 
 after corresponding with Drs. Yarden, Conant, Toy, etc., for help to aid 
 in writing up a reply after the debate: "In one instance [Greek trans- 
 lators] where (Gen. xxxvii, 31) they translated it [tabal] figuratively 
 « to dye.' " That would be so if moliinein did not mean sprinkle. But 
 the Syriac has no figurative rendering, they put it sprinkle, and leave 
 all sensible people to apply the effect of sprinkling blood on a garment. 
 Passow, Rost, Palm, and Liddell &> Scott all render molunein " sprinkle," 
 hesprengen. 
 
 t Primitiva noHo est conspergere. H. Stephanii Thesaurus Grecaj 
 Lin., V, p. 6223. Liddell & Scott: " MoAww, to stain, sully, defile, sprin- 
 kle," Sprinkle is the mode by which nolvvu, stained primarily. 
 
 X ("• "-t;^]) wephalphduh lckieti?io, sprinkled the coat— twiic. 
 
310 BAPTISM. 
 
 CastelFs Heptaglott: Phalphal, Syriac, ^^ consperdt—r 
 sprinkle/' 
 
 We will add one passage more of Hebrew now, where 
 ahhal occurs among the old Hebrew writers about or near 
 Christ's day. 
 
 "There Avas not any like to Benaiah, the son of Jeho- 
 iada, under the second Temple. He one day struck his 
 foot against a dead tortoise, and went down to Siloam, 
 where, breaking all the little particles of hail, he baptized, 
 vetahhal, himself. This was on the shortest day in win- 
 ter, the tenth of the month Tebeth." Lightfoot's Horse 
 Habraicse et Talraudicse, vol. 3, p. 292. 
 
 It is useless to argue such a question as immersion or 
 dipping here. Does it always mean immerse? Thus the 
 root-meaning of the lexicons, the Bible use, and ancient 
 Hebrew usage, and the translations, all agree that it is to 
 sprinkle, to moisten. 
 
A^XIE^*T VEESIO^v'S ON BAPTIDZO. 311 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIL 
 
 Ancient Versions on Baptidzo — The Syriac. 
 
 All scholars, all linguistic critics, and all lexicographers 
 are agreed that the ancient versions of the Hebrew and 
 Greek Scriptures are all-important to lexicographers and 
 expounders of the Word of God. All appeal to them as 
 the very highest authority in determining the force and 
 current meanings of the words of Scripture. Hence some 
 have carried this to even a dangerous extent. Of this 
 class we may name Dr. Gale, A. Campbell, Mr. Pendle- 
 ton, of Bethany — all immersionists. The latter assumes 
 that Christ, "in speaking to 'a ruler of the Jews/ did 
 not use the Greek language." He tells us "he spoke in 
 Hebrew or Aramaic,'^ i. e. Syriac, all of which is true, but 
 he uses it very doubtfully.'-' Gale assumes that the Pesh- 
 ito-Syriac translation was made from the autographs of the 
 apostles. That may be true, yet the assumptions based on 
 it may not be true. A. Campbell tells us of "the origi- 
 nal word used by the Savior in his native Syro-Chaldaic 
 language.^' t 
 
 1. The Syriac, or Syro-Chaldaic, as some call it, was 
 the vernacular, the spoken language of the Messiah and 
 his people in his day on earth. In it he preached habit- 
 ually, as did his apostles generally. 
 
 2. The translation known as the Peshito was executer], 
 
 *Millen. Harb. iS'ov., 1807, pp. 582-3. 
 
 t Debate witb Rice, and in Chris. Baptism. lo5. 
 
iM'2 BAPTISM. 
 
 beyond all reasonable doubt, in the apostolic age, and as a 
 rule at least, gives us the very words used by Christ in his 
 sermons and discourses. Hence all of the most learned 
 critics in the Syriac maintain that this version was made 
 in the first century. Of these may be named the great 
 Walton, Kennicott, S. Davidson, Lowth, Carpzov, Leus- 
 den. Stiles, Palfrey; while Michaelis and Jahn put it at 
 '•the close of the first" or ^'the earlier part of the second 
 century."-'- 
 
 3. The Syriac being the tongue of Christ and his apos- 
 tles, and of the great body of all the first Christians, it 
 is absurd to suppose they did not have a translation of 
 the Bible. The kings of Syria, in Edessa, Avere converted 
 to Christianity in the middle of the apostolic age. It is 
 absurd indeed to suppose they had no translation. 
 
 4. All ancient traditions of all the Syrian churches, 
 *'Nestorian, Monophysite, Melchite, and Maronite, in 
 all of w^iich this version has been in public use time out 
 of mind, and has ever been revered as coeval with the 
 origin of those churches." 
 
 5. They all held it to have been made therefore in the 
 
 "■•■•Walton, Prolegomena to his Polyglot, pp. 92-95, says, "For the 
 New Testament being written in Greek, whose vernacular language was 
 Syriac, every where savors of Syriacisms. Hence Ludovicus (author 
 of a Syriac lexicon, etc.) affirms that the true import of the phraseology 
 of the New Testament can scarcely be learned except from the Syriac." 
 «' They conceived in Syriac what they wrote in Greek." Pres. E. Stiles, 
 D.D., of Yale College, says, " The greater part of the New Testament 
 was originally written 'in Syriac,' and not merely translated, in the 
 apostolic age." All the fathers held that Matthew, if not Mark and 
 Hebrews, were written first in Syriac. Bolton held that " nearly all the 
 epistles must have been first composed by the apostles in Aramaean 
 (Syriac), their native tongue." The learned Bertholdt defends this view. 
 "The Syriac translator has recorded the actions and speeches of Christ 
 in the very language in which he spoke" (J. D. Michaelis). So held in 
 almost the same words Martini, W. Francius, Palfrev, etc. 
 
ANCIENT VER.SI()X>S OX BAPTIDZO. 31:3 
 
 apostolic age. Hence its great purity and symplicity. 
 Hence they say, "But the rest of the Old Testament 
 [books] and of the New Testament were translated with 
 great pains and accuracy by Thaddeus and the othe»* 
 apostles.^' No refutation of this can be adduced. 
 
 6. Of this version Dr. Judd, indorsed and copied by 
 Dr. J. R. Graves in the Appendix he published to M. 
 Stuart on Baptism, says, ^' The old Syriac, or Peshito, is 
 acknowledged to be the most ancient as well as one of 
 the most accurate versions of the New Testament extant. 
 It was made at least as early as the beginning of the sec- 
 ond century, in the very country where the apostles lived 
 and wrote, and where both the Syriac and the Greek were 
 constantly used and perfectly understood. Of course it 
 was executed by those who understood and spoke both 
 languages precisely as the sacred writers themselves un- 
 derstood and spoke them. . . All the Christian sects in 
 Svria and the East make use of this version exclusively'^ 
 (p. 246). 
 
 7. Such a version thus executed was indorsed thus by 
 the whole body of the apostolic ages and the scholarship 
 of the whole Syrian church. Its renderings of haptidzo 
 must be of the greatest moment, therefore. 
 
 Dr. Gale (Baptist) says, ^' The Syriac must be thought 
 almost as valuable and authentic as the original itself, 
 being made from primitive copies in or very near the 
 times of the apostles/' By primitive he tells us what he 
 means — ^' The autograph'' of the apostles. Reflections 
 on Wall, vol. 2, 118. 
 
 Origen, born only eighty -three to eighty-five years 
 after John's death, cites the Peshito as a familiar version 
 already long in use. It was cited a.d. 220 as an estab- 
 lished standard of authority. Ephraem Syrus quotes one 
 
314 BAPTISM. 
 
 Avho wrote thus who treats it as established in his day. 
 So valuable is it that Goteh, A. Campbell, Conaiit, Judd, 
 all head their list of versions with the venerable Peshito. 
 The truth is, that if it were not executed till the sec- 
 ond century, it uses the words for baptism used by Christ 
 and the apostles any way. Of that no one would express 
 a doubt. 
 
 AMAD IS BAPTIDZO. 
 
 The Peshito translates baptidzo by amad. It is all- 
 important now to know the exact meaning of amad. 
 
 Dr. Judd (Baptist) says, ^^AU the authorities agree in 
 assigning to this word the primary and leading significa- 
 tion of immersion.'''^- Dr. Judd copies ft'oni the real 
 Castell, and not from Michaelis's edition, abridged, which 
 leaves off the important word involved here. 
 
 AVe now quote the lexicons as they are. 
 
 Castell: This great work, embodying three hundred 
 years of labor, by native Arabians, Jews, native Syrians, 
 being based on two lexicons on the Syriac part, made by 
 Syrians centuries before, and the equivalent of nineteen 
 of the greatest scholars all Europe produced in that re- 
 nowned age, the seventeenth century, defines amad thus : 
 
 ^^Amad,-\ primarily, to wash [literally to be cleansed or 
 
 •••■Appendix to Graves's M. Stuart, p. 246. Since the above was 
 written, Dr. Graves (Debate, p. 530) says, Amad in Syriac, as all stand- 
 ard lexicographers testify, primarily signifies to immerse." A. Camp- 
 bell (Chris. Bap., pp. 135-6) says essentially the same. Dr. G. never 
 uttered such a sentiment during the debate. That, like nearly all else aftei 
 the first few speeches, was rewritten, and so was never seen by me till 
 the book was out. Wc loaned our Castell to Dr. Graves, and he knew 
 what it said. 
 
 tAmad, Prim, ablutus est, baptizatus est (Matt, iii, 16; Luke xix 
 11, 38, etc; Matt, iii, 7, etc.; Luke vii, 30), Aph [for Ajihel, derivative] 
 immersit (Num. xxxi, 24); baptizavit (Acts xix, 4, 16, etc ) ; abl.ntio, bap- 
 ti:?atio, hnpii::niN<i, Inrnrrinn. 
 
ANCIENT VERSIONS ON BAPTIDZO. 315 
 
 washed], to baptize." Matt, iii, 16, etc. ; Luke xix, 11, 
 38, etc. ; Matt, iii, 7, etc. 
 
 ^'Aphel [i. e. derivatively], to immerse (Num. xxxi, 24). 
 Noun from mamudhitho, cleansing, baptism, washing." 
 Arabic — same word, same root — "to baptize, to make 
 wet with rain." * Under amah, '' The Arabians also lisp 
 in pronouncing amah, amath, amad, amat — to be immersed, 
 to bedew, sprinkle with water [or rain] (the earth, herbs, 
 etc.), sprinkle Avith water [rain or dew]. A horse wet 
 with water, also sprinkled. Morning dew, also wetting 
 the earth, field, bedewed, sprinkled with dew [or rain] 
 wetting, etc." f 
 
 J. Michaelis^s amad, to wash, baptize. Aphel [i. e. deriv- 
 atively] to immerse. 4: 
 
 PESHITO SYPwIAC. 
 
 Oberleitner: ^'Amad, to cleanse [or wash], to baptize. 
 Derivatively, aphel, to immerse, to baptize." § 
 
 "^Arabic, mnada ; baptizavit; A. madore jiluvice affecta fuit 
 
 t Arabic, et balbidlvit in pronunciatione (i. e. aniaih, amad, amat), hn- 
 mersus fuii, maduit, rore perfusa fuit {terra, terba, etc.), rore perfusa. 
 Equus aqua rigcetus, et perfusus. Res inatutimis, et terram. irrigans. . . 
 Rore perfusus, mademus, etc. (Heptoglotton, Ed. Castell, 280). 
 
 t As IMichaelis is misquoted in his note to the abridgment from Cas- 
 tell we give it. Mihi verisimilius, diversum playie ab literarumque 
 aliqua pernuitatione ortum ex gamotha, sicbmergere. That is, he simply 
 urges (1) That amad does not mean in Sj^riac to stand, as some thought; 
 (2) That he thinks that there has been an exchange of letters, that it 
 should be gamatha instead of am,ad — a perfect absurdity. Yet Dr. Graves 
 boldly tells us in substance that M. says it is immerse, etc. On deriva- 
 tive Aphel, Dr. Green's Heb. Gram., p. 101, sec. 77, a may be con- 
 sulted, where it answers in Hebrew to ^'■derivative verbs," in Greek and 
 Latin. (See Hoffman's Syr. Gram., etc. in detail.) 
 
 ^^Ayvnd, /tlyluhiR, hrfj^fiznfus rsi. Aphel anircl inimcrsit, baptizavit. 
 
31G BAPTISM. 
 
 4. Catafago: ''Amad, the being wet with rain."* This 
 is the only meaning he gives it. 
 
 5. Schaaf : "Amady to cleanse [or wash] oneself, to be 
 washed, to be dipped, to be immersed in water, to be bap- 
 tized." He then supposes it to be of a word spelled like it 
 in Hebrew; then he gives the Arabic through its conjuga- 
 tions; then resumes the Syriac, giving it baptize all the 
 time. Then — 
 
 ^^Apliel [derivatively], to immerse, to baptize. To im- 
 merse (Numbers xxxi, 23). To baptize (Acts i, 5; xi, 16; 
 xix, 4). 
 
 Mamudhitho (noun), baptism, place of baptism, washing, 
 cleansing.f 
 
 6. Hottinger, 1661, a lexicon of Hebrew, Chaldaic, 
 Arabic, Syriac, etc., etc.: "Amad, to baptize" (haptizare). 
 
 7. Gutbier: ^'Amad, to baptize, to be baptized." He 
 then gives "to support" as the meaning all now reject, 
 because it was based on the old false assumption of kin- 
 dredship with the Hebrew word "to stand," followed by 
 Gesenius. 
 
 8. Gesenius: "Among the Syriac Christians amad is 
 to be baptized, because the person baptized stood in the 
 water.'- J 
 
 9. Schindler, 1612: '^Amad, Arabic amada, to be bap- 
 tized, to be immersed in w^ater, to be wet, to be washed; 
 
 •••Catafago, secretary to Soliman Pasha, 1839-40, etc., corresponding 
 member of the Asiatic societies of Paris and Leipsig, of tlie Syro-Egyp- 
 tian Society of London, translator of various Oriental works, living in 
 Aleppo, in Syria, in Beirut, etc, 1858. It is an Arabic lexicon. 
 
 t " Amad, ahluit se, ahlutus, intinctus, immersus in aquam, bapii- 
 zatus est. Aphel amed, im-mersU, baptizavit. Immersit (Num. xxxi, 23); 
 bapt'izavit (Acts i, 5, etc.). Noun — baptisinus,-ma,-terium; lotio, ablutioJ' 
 
 XAjmd Syros Christianos [amad) est baptizatus est, quia baptizandus 
 stabat in aqua. 
 
AXCIEXT VERSIOXS OX BAPTIBZO. 317 
 
 for they who were baptized stand iip/=^ ... to wash one- 
 self/' etc. 
 
 Schindler so mixes the Syriac and Arabic it is impos- 
 sible to tell which meaning is meant, particularly for the 
 Syriac and Arabic. The fact he and Gesenius state is true, 
 but not because of kindredship in the Hebrew and Syriac 
 word. But it was an early custom for the candidates to 
 stand 'Mmmersed in the water'' ^'to be baptized/' noticed 
 elsewhere. 
 
 Beza is often quoted as saying amad is always immerse. 
 He says of '^ baptizein, to dye, to moisten (madefacere) , to 
 immerse," and argues this in the old style; then adds, 
 *^ Neither is there any other meaning of the word amad 
 which the Syrians use for baptize." f Beza then finds 
 *Svash, cleanse," in haptidzo by consequence, then pour as 
 the mode. 
 
 I have Lorsbach's great folio work, but it is not yet 
 completed as far as to amad or any word relating to bap- 
 tism, being in numbers issued as fast as they can. 
 
 Now, then, we have — 
 
 1. All these Syriac lexicographers, equal to some twen- 
 ty-five, giving wash (cleanse) as the primary meaning of 
 amad. 
 
 2. Not one gives immerse as the primary meaning. 
 
 3. Not one gives immerse as a current meaning. 
 
 4. All give immerse both as a derived meaning and as 
 a rare one. 
 
 5. Not one gives immerse as a New Testament mean- 
 ing, and they could find but one place in the whole Old 
 
 *Syr., amad; Arabic, amad haptizaius, in a.qiiam ivimersus, tincius, 
 lotus fuit : Siobant enim qtii hapiiznhantur, . . . sese abluisaet. 
 
 t Tingere, ciitn Trapd to jSaTzrecv dicaiu?', et cum tingenda merganiur, 
 madefacere, et mergere. Then — " Nee alia est sigmfcatw,'' etc. 
 
318 BAPTISM. 
 
 Testament where amad meant immerse; and in that place 
 the Hebrew and Greek have not the words for baptize. 
 
 6. Over and again it means to sprinkle, to wet with 
 dew, wet with rain, bedew — all being cases of sprinkling. 
 
 7. I had the pleasure of finding where the Greek word 
 louo (Xooo)'), to wash, pour,* is twice translated amad in 
 Susanna xii, 6; xiii, 16, in London Polyglott of Walton. 
 
 8. In John v, 2, 4, 7 ; ix, 7 : ''Go wash at [or in] the 
 baptistery,^^ shows that amad in its noun-form expressed 
 the nipto, wash, which was simply application of water, not 
 dipping. 
 
 9. The Peshito, or the translation of Kev^elation, made 
 only a little later, translates bajyto by " to sprinkle.^^ f 
 
 10. It translates tabhal, Greek, baptidzo (2 Kings v, 14), 
 by sechoj wash, a word never meaning dip or immerse, but 
 primarily "to pour.^^ It applies — secho does — in the an- 
 cient Targums when Joseph ''washed his face." In the 
 New Testament it applies (secho) to washing a dead body, 
 as that of Dorcas, wetting a couch with tears, etc. X 
 
 11. In the first case of the Hebrew word for baptize in 
 all literature (Gen. xxxvii, 31) it is translated sprinkle by 
 the Peshito. § Such are the facts in this great version. 
 
 12. And it is w^orthy of remark, that in no case have 
 the Hebrew words for immerse, tabha, kaphash, shakha, or 
 the Greek words budfhidzo, kataduo, pontidzo, katapontidzo, 
 immerse, or dupto, dip, or bapto, sometimes to dip — em~ 
 bapto dip, ever been translated in Syriac or Arabic by 
 amad. If amad was immerse, why not do this? 
 
 * See under Wash. No lexicon had as yet made that discovery, nor 
 writer. See it in Carrollton Debate, p. 148. 
 
 t Revelation xix, 13, zelach, "sprinkled with blood." 
 
 JHottinger defines the root-syllable, sacha, "to pour out," effudit. 
 Castell, effudit aquam, profudit. In Arabic, " vehement rain." 
 
 §See all the quotations and facts Chapter XXIII of this work. 
 
ANCIENT VKllSIONS ON JIAPTIDZO. iMi) 
 
 13. But the old Syriac has another word for baptize, 
 in ancient Syriac and Arabic, fseva; tsavagh in Arabic, or 
 tsavaga. The ancient sect known as Sabeans or Tsabeans, 
 derived their name from daily baptizing.* Baptist Avrit- 
 ers think tseva was the word used by Christ in the com- 
 mission.f They insist tseva always means immerse. It is 
 the same in Syriac, Chaldee, and Arabic. 
 
 (1) The great Oriental philologist and scholar of the 
 present age in Hebrew and kindred languages, was Fiirst, 
 Professor of Hebrew, etc. in Leipsic, Germany. He thus 
 defines it as late as 1867-8: ^^ Tseva, to moisten, to be- 
 sprinkle, to baptize; Paal (form), to water, to moisten. ^^ 
 To besprinkle, to moisten, is its '^ fundamental significa- 
 tion.'' 
 
 (2) Gutbier defines it "to moisten, to wasli" (lavit). 
 
 14. But let us test this word in the Bible. In Daniel 
 is the only place where it occurs in Chaldee — the only 
 place where tseva occurs in the Old Testament original 
 (Daniel iv, 20), '^And his body was baptized (tseva) with 
 the dew of heaven." Was this dipping? O, cries the 
 immersionist, " dews are very heavy in Chaldea, and his 
 body v/as as wet as if immersed!" Indeed! But no 
 matter how copious the dew", it does not read " as wet as 
 if dipped or immersed." It uses no metaphor either. It 
 is as historic and unmetaphorical as when it says " the 
 people were baptized." It is as literal as when it says 
 " Philip baptized him," the eunuch. " His body was bap- 
 
 - See the Note in ^ichaelis's edition of Castell : Scebii nomen Men- 
 d(BOSum, i. e. discipulorrim Joannes, qui Ha a haptizajido dlcti, haptisia;, 
 sen, ut Orceci illos vacant i^/uepo — fiaTmaTac. See Neander's Church Hist., 
 also, and Gieseler. 
 
 t Dr. Graves (Debate, 390), as published, says, " In this [the Nesto- 
 rian Eitual of Syria] the verb amad is used interchangeably with isevce, 
 ivhich has no other meaning hut to immerse.'" He used not a sentence i» 
 all that published speech in the spoken one. 
 
320 BAPTISM. 
 
 tized with the dew from heaven." It was a literal man, 
 literal dew, a literal baptism. 
 
 15. The Vulgate of Jerome, a.d. 380-383, translates 
 this : "And his body was sprinkled with the dew of heav- 
 en." * In the Chaldee it is repeated four times. In verse 
 22, the Vulgate again reads, " His body shall be sprink- 
 led (Chaldee, baptized) with the dew of heaven." f As 
 Jerome was the ablest Syriac scholar and Hebrew in all 
 the church save in the Syriac branch at that time, and his 
 version was sustained by all scholars, it certainly is con- 
 clusive on this point. 
 
 16. Psalm vi, 6 [in the Hebrew 7], " My couch have 
 I baptized (tseva) with my tears." What was the mode? 
 
 SYRIAC VERSIONS. 
 
 17. Ezekiel xxii, 26: "Thou art the land that is not 
 (tzeva) baptized [English, purified]; no, upon thee the rain 
 has not fallen." J We know the mode of this baptizing. 
 We need no lexicons to aid us. 
 
 18. Luke vii, 38, 44. Remember that most likely we 
 have here word for word the very w^ords in the language 
 Jesus used ; for it is his vernacular, as the English is 
 yours. It occurs twice in the same sense. "Simon, into 
 thy house I came ; water upon my feet you gave me not 
 [so runs the Syriac], but she [the woman] with her tears 
 my feet hath baptized ! " We know the mode. We need 
 no lexicon. I Avould not give one such witness as this — 
 being in the very age of the apostles, in the very language 
 in which Christ and his apostles preached, made in such a 
 
 -*Et rove coeli conspergaiur. 
 ^Et rore cceli infunderis. 
 ^ Metro, necheth. 
 
ANCIENT VERSIONS ON KAPTIDZO. 321 
 
 language by such men, universally received as true to the 
 Greek when all that membership knew what apostolic 
 preaching and practice were — I would not give one such 
 authority for a thousand lexicons written fifteen hundred 
 years after the death of the apostles, and after the Dark 
 Ages with their superstitions had rolled between. 
 
 In the light of these facts, we see Castell translate 
 tseva by "to moisten, imbue (Is. Ixiii, 3); to immerse, to 
 baptize (by immersion), to pour out, baptism,'^ etc.'^ So 
 Schindler: "To moisten, to dip in dye or liquid, imbue or 
 infect, color, wash, moisten, to water, to baptize." f 
 
 Such are some of the facts on this word. Yet they tell 
 us it always means to immerse. Even M. Stuart, with 
 strangest inconsistency, pointed to this word as one defi- 
 nitely meaning to dip, immerse ! when it was the very 
 word translated bajito in Theodotian which in those very 
 places he insisted were " gentle affusions.'^ It shows the 
 carelessness of great and good men on this subject at least. 
 
 In the Koran this word (chap, xxxiii, 20 or 21) occurs 
 "in the sense of syrup, juice, or sap.'^ J; 
 
 *Tinxit, imbuit (Is. Ixiii, 3), immersit, bapiizavit (per immersionem), 
 effudii, baptismits. 
 
 t Schindler: Tinxii (of tseva), iniinxit, colore vel humor e, imbuit seu 
 infecit, coloravit, lavit, madefecit, rigavit, baptizavit. Gesenius: Pual and 
 lih— the only form it has in the Bible—" to wet, moisten, to be wet, 
 moistened." While Gesenius is careful to tell us it means dip, immerse, 
 in Hebrew, when the word never occurs a single time in all the Hebrew 
 language, and to dye, in the Targums, is it a merit after this blunder, to 
 fail to tell us it is one of the leading words for wash in the Targums? It 
 not only translates tabal, but frequently translates rachats, "to wash, ' 
 " pour." It is the word in the Targum in Leviticus viii, 6, where Aaron 
 and his sons are washed " with water " — rachats in Hebrew, while in 
 the Syriac and Targum of Onkelos, it is secho, wash. In Numbers xix, 
 10, 19, wash is tzeva in the same, as well as verses 7 and 8. 
 
 t Its root is defined by Fiirst, to pour, trickle, drop, etc. Gesenius: 
 " To flow, to trickle ; of water, to pour." 
 
:i22 UAPTI^^M. 
 
 111 Assemanni Bihliotheca OrienatUs we read of a dis- 
 tinguished bishop named Simeon Bar Tsaboe, who was 
 martyred, "and he indeed (tzeva) baptized his garments 
 with the blood of his own body/^"^ 
 
 AMAD IN SYRIAC LITERATURE. 
 
 Dr. Gotch, Elder Wilkes (Um. Debate, p. 579), and 
 Dr. Varden urge that the following text is in favor of im- 
 mersion, viz: '^And that yet, at a small river that same 
 head of thine should be subject to be bowed down and 
 baptized in if' (Bible Questions, p. 130, by Gotch). We 
 observe — 
 
 1. This is in the fourth century after Christ, as they tell 
 us. We freely admit immersion was often practiced in 
 those later centuries, though aifusionwas practiced as well. 
 
 2. He was baptized, even in their version of Ephraem, 
 not in, but "at the river" — ^^at a small river" (Le- 
 nahero). Hence it was not immersion. 
 
 3. If his whole body was immersed, why spfeak only of 
 his head as bowed "at the small river," which was clearly 
 to receive the water poured upon it? No one bows his 
 head simply to be immersed when the whole body is put 
 under. 
 
 4. The figure of Ephraem is, that as the waters of the 
 sea were subjected to Christ's feet, so now his head is 
 bowed in subjection to the waters of Jordan, poured upon 
 it in baptism. The rendering "in it" is equally literal — 
 "with it," the waters of the "insignificant stream." 
 
 5. All ancient pictures of Christ's baptism represent 
 him as standing "at the river," head bowed, to receive 
 the water poured upon it, while John stands with a little 
 
 * Tomus i, 2. 
 
ANCIENT VEESIONS ON EAPTIDZO. 323 
 
 vessel pouring the water on his head. No such ancient 
 picture represents him as immersed. 
 
 6. We relied on the old Peshito version made in the 
 apostolic age and the greatest of lexicons to define the 
 words when lexicons are appealed to as evidence. The 
 forced rendering of Hebrews vi, 4, " Who once submitted 
 to baptism ^'* by "descending into the baptistery/'f is suf- 
 ficiently refuted by the fact that no such innovation as a 
 baptistery was in existence in all the Christian Church till 
 the third and fourth centuries.]; 
 
 5. Bernstein confounds amad with the Arabic gahmat, 
 immerse, another word altogether. There is no dip in the 
 
 '^Le^natnudhUho nechilio, '* submisit," as well as " desccndit," and 77ia- 
 mudhithx) is baptism, the noun in the New Testament. See Schaaf s 
 Syr. Lex. N. T. 
 
 t Since the above was written, Dr. Grave?, who in the debate could 
 not be induced by any process to try to meet my facts on the Syriac and 
 the later versions, in his clandestine way of rewriting his speeches with 
 mine before him, and by accident a ^x/r^ of which, repassing through 
 Memphis, I saw and hastily answered in transit, professes to cite Bern- 
 stein's lexicon to Kirch's Chrestomathy, and renders amad, " he was dip- 
 ped, ... he dipped, etc. The point of the arrow sank into his brain," 
 etc. We reply, 1. He fails to give us the original, and we know his utter 
 unreliability. 2. Kirch's Chrestomathy is made up of the Syriac in its 
 latest stage, its death-struggles in the thirteenth and later centuries, es- 
 pecially on Bar-Hebra?us, who wrote half Arabic half Syriac dialect in 
 the last part of the thirteenth century. This is a little late. 3. Bern- 
 stein's lexicon is only a partial lexicon or glossary, defining words found 
 in this late author, and as nsed by him, not as i(sed in the Bible. Why 
 quote such a work? 4. Dr. G. falsely translates the lexicon all the 
 way through, as well as Bar Ali ! He renders mersus, imniersit se, di])- 
 ped, yet the same word he in the same sentence translates *' sank," 
 where the arrow sank, "immersit se" — immersed itself into the brain. 
 
 J Stuart on Baptism, by J. K. Graves, p. 183: "This practice of 
 building baptisteries is loell known to be an innovation upon the more 
 ancient usage of the church. In the time of Justin Martyr [a.d. 166] 
 there were no such accommodations as these." So Wall, vol. 2, p, 457-8; 
 Hist. Inf. Bap.; and cites the great historian Bingham to prove they 
 existed not till about fourth century. 
 
32-i BAPTISM. 
 
 wholo glossary on tliis word. Bar-Hebrseus cites *'the 
 great Basil" to justify his superstitious ideas of the 
 wonderful virtue of water — '^ From the beginning [the 
 Holy Spirit] infused life into the waters" (in Gen. i, 2). 
 Hence their immersion theory to absorb the sanctifying 
 virtues of the water ! 
 
 Dr. G. actually translates Gutbier's word '^ haptizaviV^ 
 on amad hy "immerse"!! (p. 388). He copies Dr. Yar- 
 den's renderings on Bar-Hebraeiis, thirteenth century, still, 
 where Bar-Heb. comments on Job xli, 1, saying the levi- 
 athan " plunged in the depths of the sea." How could a 
 leviathan, that was already in the depths of the sea, 
 '^plunge" or "dip" himself, in a Baptist sense of dip? 
 He was already under the water. What is the meaning, 
 then? And this is the best they can do to meet our 
 crushing facts! 
 
 There is no record or hint of such. In the days of 
 Justin Martyr, the middle of the second century, of Iren- 
 seus and Tcrtullian, no baptistery Avas known. 
 
 But though we rely on the Bible facts, or versions of 
 that book, let us take up the literature of the Nestorians 
 and Syrians generally, and see the result. 
 
 Dr. G. (p. 389) cites Numbers xxxi, 23 (24) : "All that 
 abideth not the fire ye shall plunge it (Syriac, amad) in 
 water." First, this is the only place in the Bible where 
 Castell, Schaaf, etc. could find amad used for, as they 
 thought, immerse; second, it is not a case of baptism, as 
 in the Hebrew and Greek no word is used that is ever 
 used for baptism; third, there is no proof of immersion 
 in the text. The Hebrew phrase so rendered is in the 
 Vulgate rendered, "Shall be sanctified by the water of 
 expiation." 
 
 Dr. G. tells us, then (p. 389), "'His grand old Syriac 
 
ANCIENT VERSIONS ON BAPTIDZO. 325 
 
 version supports' my position that Romans vi, 4, refers to 
 water baptism!" But he says not how; why? It reads 
 in the Syriac exactly as in our English version, and has 
 not a drop of water in it. " Therefore (or for) Ave are 
 [present tense] buried with him by baptism into death" — 
 lemaimtho. The great Walton renders it in Latin, Sepultl 
 enim sumus cum eo per baptisma ad mortum. Where is the 
 support? He makes the baptism of Christ (Luke xii, 50; 
 Mark x, 38, 39), as all modern immersionists do, refer 
 to his ^^ sinking in a flood of afflictions" etc! All the 
 fathers, as shown, Syriac, Latin, Greek, refer that bap- 
 tism to the blood and water on the cross baptizing him. 
 
 AM AD IN LITEEATURE. 
 
 1. In a discussion among the ancient Syrian churches, 
 on many things, they name the matters of the form of the 
 verb they use, amad^ and say, ^'When he baptizes, even 
 with the inyocation of the Trinity, and with a washing 
 of natural water, immersion, or sprinkling, it is not true 
 baptism," " unless the proper word is used also." '•' 
 Again, "If, when he baptizes, he uses that [form of amad^ 
 for the present imperative, if other things are right, espe- 
 cially the intention, immersion in natural water, ablution, 
 or sprinkling, with the invocation," etc. f 
 
 2. In Bibliotheca Orlentalis, vol. 4, page 260, we read, 
 "When Christ the Lord was baptized in the Jordan, say 
 Simeon the Presbyter and John Zugbi, John the Baptist 
 filled a little vessel with the water that flowed from his 
 sacred body, and preserved it until the day he was be- 
 headed, when he delivered it into the custody of his dis- 
 
 '"^ Bibliotheca Orienialis, torn, iv, CCL (250), abhitio, immersione, vel 
 aspersione, in Latin. 
 
 tlbid., in oqtiam naiuraleni immersio, ahlv.iio, vel ospersio, etc. 
 
326 BAPTISM. 
 
 ciple, John the Evangelist. To this same John the Evan- 
 gelist, they add, when Christ instituted the eucliaristic 
 supper, and distributed a part to each of the apostles, he 
 gave a double portion; the rest of which he took, and 
 delivered in the same way as the other — in a little vessel 
 of water. And, afterward, he poured into this same ves- 
 sel the water which flowed from the side of Christ when 
 hanging on the cross ; and the blood that flowed from his 
 side he mixed with the eucharistic bread. This, they say, 
 was the leaven of the eucharist, that the leaven of bap- 
 tism. For the apostles, after they had received the Holy 
 Spirit, before they w^nt forth, divided this water and 
 eucharistic bread among themselves, which they were to 
 use as an element in administering baptism.'' Now — 
 
 1. We cite this not as a fact, but as showing what 
 those ancient Syrians believed as to Christ's baptism and 
 that practiced under the apostles. 
 
 2. Christ is believed to have stood in Jordan to be 
 baptized. The water was poured on his head, and '^ flowed 
 down his sacred side." 
 
 3. The amount put in little water-vessels, caught from 
 his side thus and from the cross, was sufficient for bap- 
 tizing. Hence it was not immersion. 
 
 4. In the same great Syriac compilation (tom. iii, 357), 
 the Syrians thus held as to baptism. There are seven 
 kinds of baptism recorded : 1. . . . washing. 2. Legal 
 baptism, purifications according to the law of Moses. 3. 
 Baptism ... of cups, brazen vessels, couches, etc. ... 6. 
 Baptism of blood — I have a baptism to be baptized with,"* 
 etc. 7. Baptism of tears — mamudhitho clheme. 
 
 "••• Syr,, nioro ve niamunutho aith li dhemad. Yet immersionists per- 
 sist in referring the baptism referred to here to " overwhelming " suf- 
 ferings in the garden, and to " sinking in &. flood of afflictions " 1 Heavy 
 on flood. 
 
ANCIENT VERSIONS ON BAPTIDZO. 327 
 
 1. These are all recorded as literal baptisms under the 
 head — Al maniudthitho — baptism . 
 
 2. No one will contend that the blood shed in martyr- 
 dom, and that which was shed by Christ on his own body 
 was immersion. 
 
 3. Baptism with tears was not a clear ease of dipping. 
 Such are the facts in the Syriac, Of course they often 
 immersed '^ in the Dark Ages,'^ and as often mersed the 
 party waist deep or more, and baptized by affusion. 
 
 Once more, let it be remembered that the three He- 
 brew words that definitely mean immerse, the one that 
 often applies to a partial dip, tabhal, and the numerous 
 Greek words for dip and immerse — hidkidzo, kataduo, kata- 
 pendizo — immerse, are in no case in all the Bible trans- 
 lated by amad in either Syriac or Arabic. Why did they 
 not do so if that word meant in that day immerse? Dip 
 occurs repeatedly in our English versions in both Testa- 
 ments, but never is the original of such places amad in 
 Syriac or Arabic, 
 
o28 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER XXVIII. 
 
 The Arabic Version. 
 
 Dr. Gotch says, " Of native words employed by the 
 Syriac, the Arabic, ^thiopic, Coptic, etc. all signify to 
 immerse.'' Of coarse Drs. A. Campbell, Graves, Judd, 
 Wilkes, Brents, etc. follow suite in this assertion as well 
 as Ingham. 
 
 Til is and all Arabic versions, having the same render- 
 ings of baptldzo, were made when the Arabic was the lan- 
 guage of renown, and led the intellectual world. At this 
 time, ^'the Saracen Empire [Arabic] was dotted all over 
 with colleges, ... in Mesopotamia, Syria, Egypt, North 
 Africa," etc. (Draper). They made translations of Plato, 
 Aristotle, the Iliad, Hippocrates, Galen, etc. etc. from the 
 Greek. There were seventy public libraries in one single 
 province. One man spoke seventy-two dialects. The 
 royal court was rather an academy of learning than of 
 statecraft. Amid this blaze of intellectual light and 
 knowledge of Greek the Arabic versions were made. Ge- 
 senius says, ^^In every respect the most perfect source of 
 Hebrew etymology and lexicography is the Arabic," " to 
 it [the Arabic] belongs the first place among all this class 
 of philological auxiliaries " (Bib. Repos. 18, 33). 
 
 1. These versions render baptidzo by amada, the same 
 as amad in Syriac just examined. 
 
 2. It is rendered over and again by tsavagha^ the same 
 as the Syriac tseva, which see in the last chapter. 
 
THE ARABIC VERSION. 329 
 
 3. Tliey trcinslate it hy gasala (Luke xi, 38; Mark vii, 
 4), and its nouns, baptismos and baptlsma (Heb. vi, 2 ; 
 Mark vli, 4, 8) by the noun-form of gasala. Of gasala, 
 to baptize, wash, besprinkle — 
 
 (1) No lexicon in existence renders it by dip, or plunge, 
 or immerse. 
 
 (2) Castell, wlio had native Arabians to assist him, 
 renders it " to wash, to cleanse, etc. To be sprinkled with 
 Avater, to wash diligently, to wash off the body (members), 
 to wash oneself, etc., to moisten, to be sprinkled, ... to 
 besprinkle.^' * It occurs for washing the face (Matt, vi, 
 17; Ps. Ixxiii, 13; Lev. viii, 6), and when the head is 
 sprinkled with rose-water, etc. 
 
 In the face of the fact that not a lexicon — neither Go- 
 Hus, Freytag, Kosegarten, Catafago, nor the great Castell— 
 gives dip, or immerse, or plunge, or sink for gasala, or 
 its nouns, but define it by wash, cleanse, where it applies 
 to washing the face, the members, dead bodies, and sprin- 
 klings, what are we to think of such assertions, not to 
 name the facts of the first chapter, and those next to 
 come ? 
 
 Gasala repeatedly translates nipto, to wash the hands 
 that means to rain (Job xx, 23) ; e. g. brecho in Sym- 
 machus's version — rain in ours. Yet the word that trans- 
 lates such a word translates bapticlzo. 
 
 CODEX VATICANUS, FOURTH CENTURY. 
 
 The great Codex Vaticanus, about A. D. 325, translates 
 baptidzo by sprinkle (Mark vii, 4).t It being iie Jew- 
 
 * Castel], gasala, lavii, abluit, etc., sudorc, perfusus fait, . . . diligen- 
 ter lavii, perluit ynemhra, se abluit, etc.; maduit, perfusis J .tit, . . . iiv 
 sperglt. 
 
 t Bi-riaG^vrrj. h rendered there pavrKTavrai, "besprinkle. 
 
3o0 BAPTIS:S[. 
 
 ish baptism, unauthorized by Christ, the copyist translates 
 it into its mode in that place. 
 
 CODEX SINAITICUS, A. D. 325. 
 
 This great copy of the Bible, with seven other ancient 
 ones, translates baptisontai (Mark vii, 4) by sprinkle.* 
 
 ITALA AND VULGATE. 
 
 The Italay made in the second century by converts of 
 the apostolic age, is, next to the Peshito, the most valuable 
 translation we have. Jerome's Vulgate and it are the 
 same on those points : 
 
 1. They transfer baptidzo in every instance in the New 
 Testament, not translating it at all. 
 
 2. They translate tabal (Greek, baptidzo) (2 Kings v, 14) 
 by wash, lavo (wash, bedew, sprinkle). 
 
 3. They translate baptOy sprinkle (Rev. xix, 13). 
 
 4. They translate the Chaldeo for baptize, same as Syriac 
 and Arabic, tzeva, by ''to sprinkle^' twice/f 
 
 5. They never translate either baptidzo or tabal by im- 
 merse. 
 
 ^THIOPIC VERSION. 
 
 Of this version that zealous Baptist, Dr. Gale, says, 
 '"The Syriac and ^thiopic versions, which for their an- 
 tiquity must be thought almost as valuable and authentic 
 as the original itself y being made from p>rimitive copies, in or 
 very near the times of the apostles, and rendering the pas- 
 
 "•=• BawriGCiVTai is rendered pavnauvrai. 
 f Daniel iv, conapergaiur, mfunderis. 
 
THE ARABIC VERSION. 331 
 
 sage (Num. xix, 13, bapto) by words that signify to sprinkle, 
 . . . very strongly argue that he (Origen) has preserved 
 the same word which was in the autograph."* 
 
 This is more just of the Syriac, Sahidic, and Itala. 
 The ^thiopic has a word expressing definitely to immerse, 
 maabj '' to ov^erflow, submerse." It is never used for bap- 
 tize, etc. Now this version renders — 
 
 1. Bapto by to spHnhhy as Dr. Gale observes. 
 
 2. It renders {kathavlsmoa) purification, always per- 
 formed by sprinklings (see John ii, 6; Heb. ix, 13, 19, 
 21; Num. viii, 7; xix, 13-15) by baptism. 
 
 3. It never renders baptize by immerse or any word 
 equivalent to dip. 
 
 4. It renders bapdidzo tamak, which Castell renders, " to 
 be baptized, to baptize. '^ Neither he nor Hottinger ren- 
 ders it by dip, plunge, or immerse. It is the same as tam- 
 ash in other Oriental versions — same word. Schindler 
 renders it in Hiphil form (derivative meaning) by plunge, 
 wet, dip, wash, and gives Psalm vi, 7, "baptized my couch 
 with my tears," as his first proof-text.f It is kindred 
 with tamal also, which never implies immersion, but con- 
 stantly applies to aifusions. It renders John v, 4; ix, 7, 
 Siloam, where the people washed by baptistery, as the 
 Syriac. Castell gives both j)lunge and moisten — rigavit, 
 always affusion — as meanings of tamash. 
 
 5. This version renders baptidzo by mo, mot — "water." 
 It is the same root with iiwh — " sprinkle with water, pour, 
 rain, water, juice, fluid, water." t ^Pho, moisten, pour. 
 
 * Reflect, on Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap., Letter V, vol. 2, 118, ed. of 1862. 
 
 t Hiphil of tamash, mersit, Hnxit, intinxit, lavit (Ps. vi, 7), lique- 
 faciam. 
 
 X Castell, aqua, iierjusua est, pluviam fudii, . . . aqua . . . aquam, 
 etc. — no immersion. Hottinger, tinxit, baptizavit, moisten, baptize, 
 ^thiopic, m'ho liquescere, hqy.pfieri, fundi. Castell, 2003. 
 
332 BAPTISM. 
 
 Here is one of the words translated from haptidzo that 
 simply means to water, without specifying mode, while 
 the same word essentially, same root, means to sprinkle 
 with water, water, pour, rain. So testifies this great 
 author. 
 
 The Amharic, a later version, renders it as the one just 
 noticed generally, and need not be noticed separately. 
 
 THE COPTIC. 
 
 This version of the third century, made in Egypt 
 where learning was then in a high state of cultivation, 
 translates — 
 
 1. Bapto by sprinkle (Rev. xix, 13). 
 
 2. It renders baptidzo by tamaka, same as the above in 
 ^thiopic, a word of affusion. 
 
 3. It never renders it by immerse. 
 
 In the third century the Egyptian version was made. 
 
 1. It renders baptidzo by oms, which is of the same 
 root as amada, amad in Syriac and Arabic, wash, baptize, 
 s]>rinkle, make wet. 
 
 BASMURIC, THIRD CENTURY. 
 
 1. This version translates bapto by sprinkle in Revela- 
 tion xix, 13. 
 
 2. It habitually transfers baptidzo. 
 
 3. It never renders baptidzo by immerse, dip, or 
 plunge. 
 
THE ARABIC VERSION. 333 
 
 SAHIDIC, SECOND CENTURY. 
 
 1. It transfers baptidzo. 
 
 2. It never renders it immerse. 
 
 3. It translates bapto sprinkle (Rev. xix, 13). 
 
 While we only have these facts from these versions, 
 we regret we have not copies of them personally ; for then 
 no doubt our researches would bring out valuable and 
 startling facts as in the Syriac, Arabic, Vulgate, and 
 ancient literature, etc. Having the Persic we are enabled 
 to give more light on it, however. 
 
 PERSIC. 
 
 The Persic renders baptidzo by several words. It has 
 a word (autha) meaning emphatically to immerse. See 
 Golius in Castell, p. 408. But it never renders baptidzo 
 by it or any word implying immersion. It renders bap- 
 tidzo — 
 
 1. By sitstan, shustidan, thus defined in Golius's lex- 
 icon: Washing, baptism; to wash (besprinkle, cleanse); 
 washing, cleansing, baptize. [Lavaorum, baptismus, la- 
 mre.] Gen. xvii, 4; xix, 2; Ex. ii, 5; John iii, 25 {lotio), 
 lotus; John xiii, 10, baptizare; Matt, iii, 6-13. Castell. 
 
 2. It renders it by shuhar, shue, ^' to give a bath or ad- 
 minister a washing [pour water for it] ; to fall in drops of 
 water, distill; to baptize. [Lavandum dare, stillare, . . 
 baptizare.''^ Castell.] 
 
 3. It renders purifying (John iii, 25) by baptism. 
 
 4. Baptidzo is translated into the word used Exodus ii, 
 5, washed, epi, at the river; Genesis xviii, 4, where it was 
 with ^' a little water;'' in John xiii, 10, where Christ washed 
 
334 BAPTISM. 
 
 their feet, unquestioDably by applying the water; for he 
 would not plunge all their feet into the same basin, in " un^ 
 clean ^^ water. It was water " upon " the feet. Luke vii, 
 38, 39-44. 
 
 ITALA, BEGINNING OF SECOND CENTUEY. 
 
 1. This version renders bapto by sprinkle, asperso. 
 
 2. It never renders baptidzo by dip or immerse. This 
 is the more remarkable if baptidzo was equivalent to im- 
 merse, since immerse is a Latin word, and this Latin ver- 
 sion should have used it if baptidzo meant immerse. That 
 was the very place for it. 
 
 3. It renders tabhal by lavit (2 Kings v, 14), wash, be- 
 sprinkle. 
 
 4. It transfei*s baptidzo throughout. 
 
 5. It renders baptize in Chaldee by sprinkle, consper- 
 gatur. 
 
 JEROME'.S VULGATE, A.D. 383. 
 
 The Vulgate, so patiently rendered by the learned 
 Jerome, based on the Itala, but made more smooth and 
 elegant in style, is, like the Itala, of great value. 
 
 L It translates bapto by sprinkle (Rev. xix, 13).* 
 
 2. It transfers baptidzo habitually. 
 
 3. It never renders baptidzo^ or any word for baptize, 
 by immerse. 
 
 4. It translates tabhal (Greek, baptidzo) (2 Kings v, 14) 
 by lavit y wash, besprinkle. 
 
 5. It translates baptize (tseva) (Dan. iv, 22) sprinkle. f 
 
 * Greek (ietaixuhov aifiuTi. Beza : Et amicius erat veste ilncid sari- 
 gutne, Vulgate, Etvesiitus erat vesfe aspersa sanguine. 
 t Daniel x, 22, et rore cceli infunderis. 
 
THE ARABIC VERSION. 335 
 
 6. It translates the same word {tseva) in Daniel iv, 20, 
 sprinkle. * 
 
 LUTHERAN VERSION, 1522. 
 
 The Lutheran version, 1522, renders baptidzo by — 
 
 1. TaufeUy to baptize, without implying mode. But 
 when tlie version was made sprinkling and pouring were 
 the general, yea, universal practice. This all acknowl- 
 edge, and A. Campbell says so, quoting Erasmus. f Lu- 
 ther poured the water on the infantas head when he said, 
 '^Ich taufe euch mit wasser.^^ It is downright dishonesty 
 to pretend that by taufen he and the various German trans- 
 lators meant dip, whatever may have been its former force. 
 With them it neither meant dip, sprinkle, nor pour, but 
 was used as tlie Latins used baptidzo and tingoy for baptize. 
 
 2. In 2 Kings v, 14, tabal — baptidzo; Luke xi, 38; 
 Mark vii, 4, baptidzo is rendered ivasehen. 
 
 3. Bapto is rendered in Revelation xix, 13, sprinkle 
 {besprengt). 
 
 The Lusitanian version renders both words in the same 
 places the same — baptidzo, wash; bapto, sprinkle. 
 
 The Jerusalem Targum renders raohats (" wash, pour") 
 by tavalj and tabal by raohats; the latter also by ^'washed 
 
 "•■• Daniel x, 20, ei rore coell conspergattjr. 
 
 t Chris. Baptisms, p. 192: " Erasmus, who spent some time in Eng- 
 land, during the reign of Henry VTII, observes, < With us [the Dutch], 
 the baptized, have the water poured on them. In England they are 
 dipped.' " And yet Judd, Ingham, Brents, Graves, all repeat the oft- 
 refated assumption that tavfen was meant by the German of Luther lor 
 immerse, and so render it! So of all the kindred versions, in the face 
 of the fact that all those nations baptize by sprinkling, as A. Campbell 
 admits, and they all knoAv. Those versions all use different words in 
 their versions for the dip of our version. But we have abundantly 
 seen how they treat lexicons of all kinds, authorities, and versions as 
 well. 
 
33G BAPTISM. 
 
 their face with tears" (Gen. xliii, 30). This shows that 
 tliese words were words of affusion. 
 
 The Arabic and the Targum render Psalm vi, 6, 7, 
 '^ wet my couch with my tears," hrcGho, with the word that 
 translates baptidzo and tabal. 
 
 It is useless to multiply facts. The sura of all this is — 
 
 1. For fifteen hundred years after the Christian era not 
 a single version made from the original Scriptures supports 
 a case of immersion. 
 
 2. Every version made supported affusion, and with 
 overwhelming force. We have not quoted Wycliffe and 
 several German versions falsified by Conant as made from 
 the Greek. They were all made from the Latin, and hence 
 have nothing to do with baptidzo or bapto. They would 
 support us, especially Wycliffe, who has baptize wash, 
 and for the aspersa of Jerome, sprinkle. But Wycliffe 
 never saw a Greek Testament. The same applied to the 
 Rheims, made from the Latin.* 
 
 These versions establish the following facts: 
 
 1. That affusion is so clearly taught in the Bible as the 
 proper mode of baptism that all the pains and prejudice 
 of James's translators, being honest but deeply prejudiced, 
 could not obliterate them. 
 
 2. That bapto continued to mean sprinkle as well as to 
 stain, color, and dip. 
 
 3. That baptidzo never was synonymous with dip, plunge 
 or immerse in any age of the world. 
 
 <^'The Danish version, 1524, has dobe, baptize; the Swedish, 1534, 
 has dopa, baptize; the Dutch, 1560, doopen, baptize. These words may 
 once have represented dip — primarily, moisten, wet, for aught we care. 
 The point is, what did the translators mean by these words? No honest 
 man will prete^id that they meant immerse, since they all then baptized 
 by. sprinkling in those countries, all immersion authorities so testifying. 
 Hence they would use those words when sprinkling the parties as we 
 jse baptize. 
 
THE ARABIC VERSION. 337 
 
 4. That baptize is translated by words meaning to wash, 
 to cleanse, to sprinkle, besprinkle in all the best and 
 purest versions from the apostolic to our times. 
 
 5. Finally, no version of the fifteen centuries after the 
 Christian era renders haptidzo, or words for baptize, by im- 
 merse or its equivalent in any language. 
 
 22 
 
338 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER XXIX. 
 
 Washing, Cleansing, Baptism — Wash in the Old 
 Testament, Baptize in the New Testament. 
 
 The inventive genius of immersionists is only equalled 
 by their marvelous capacity at blundering, and their bold- 
 ness in trampling under foot every law of language is only 
 surpassed by their blind persistence in reproducing and 
 reaffirming all the old quotations that have been exposed 
 as garbled and entirely unreliable. 
 
 They find color, dye, stain as definitions of bapto, tingo^ 
 etc., and all assert that color, stain, dye, come from dip! 
 They see wash, cleanse, as meanings of baptidzo ; they 
 (»ome from dip also ! 
 
 facts on wash. 
 
 1. The wash [Hebrew, rachats; Greek, louo, niptOfpluno, 
 Jdudzo] . . of the Pentateuch, es^^ecially in Exodus, Levit- 
 icus, and Numbers, all parties agree is the baptidzo with its 
 nouns of the New Testament. However much the design 
 and use may have varied, the wash of the one is the bap- 
 tism of the other. We quoted much on this subject in the 
 chapter on the laver baptisms. 
 
 2. All immersionists as well as affusionists generally 
 maintain that the washing of Acts xxii, 16; Ephesians v, 
 '26 ; Titus V, 5, 6 ; Hebrews x, 22, is a repeated reference 
 to baptism, immersionists holding it to be baptism itself. 
 
WASI-IIXG, CLEANSING, BAPTISM. 339 
 
 Dr. Carson says, "The word [ixiehats, wash] alv/ays 
 includes dipping, and never signifies less.^^ * 
 
 3. All are agreed that the Greek word baptidzo means 
 wash, cleanse, and most writers add purify. First. All 
 standard lexicons, classic or biblical, render it wash, or 
 cleanse. Second. All ancient versions without an excep- 
 tion, where they translate the word, at times in the New 
 Testament, render it wasli.f 
 
 4. All parties agree that for full fifteen hundred years — 
 from the days of Moses till the close of the first century — 
 from the origin of baptism as a sacred, heaven-ordained 
 rite, to the commission of Christ to baptize, wash was con- 
 stantly used, and for thirteen hundred years was the main 
 word used for the rite — was the Avord employed at its 
 first performance by Moses (Lev. viii, 6) ; hence the pro- 
 priety of looking into this word in the various languages 
 with more pains than has been the custom. 
 
 On Hebrews x, 22, Dr. Graves cites and comments on 
 it thus : " ' Our bodies washed with pure Avater.' I have 
 no doubt that this passage refers to Christian baptism.'^J 
 
 THE WASH OF THE OLD TESTAMENT THE BAPTISM OF 
 THE NEAV. 
 
 "Wash, rachats in the HebreAV (Ex. xxx, 18-22; xl, 
 30-33; Lev. viii, 6; Heb. x, 22; Eph. v, 26), all immer- 
 sionists say are the divers baptisms of Hebrews ix, 10. 
 
 The only question noAV is. What was the mode of these 
 
 » Keflections on Wall's Hist. Inf. Bap., Letter IV, p. 94, vol. 2 ; Ox- 
 ford Ed., 1862, in two volumes. 
 
 t Syriac, amad, secho ; Arabic, amada, gasala ; Latin, lavo : German, 
 ^oaschen, etc. 
 
 X Carrollton Debate, p. 186. 
 
340 BAPTISM. 
 
 baptisms? As far as facts go we have giv^en enough in the 
 chapter on the laver baptisms. But we wish to take up 
 the word wash in the Hebrew and Greek Scriptures and 
 examine it on its own merits now, and see how the word 
 stands as between us and Drs. Carson, Gale, A. Campbell, 
 Conant, Bingham, J. R. Graves, and Elder Wilkes, etc., 
 immersionists. Now — 
 
 1. No lexicon in existence ever defined the word [ra- 
 chats] by immerse, dip, or plunge, or any equivalent word. 
 
 2. No immersionist we ever read or heard ventured to 
 render it immerse, dip, or plunge. 
 
 3. Whenever it is rendered by a modal term, it is in 
 every case either sprinkle, pour, or a word equivalent 
 thereto. Proof — 
 
 (1) Fiirst, the greatest of all Hebrew lexicographers, 
 gives as its meaning, "to wash,'"' and adds that its radical 
 or primary meaning is "to flow, to pour out, to drip." 
 
 (2) It is rendered cheo (jioo), to pour, in the Greek ver- 
 sion [LXX] mainly used by the apostles. 
 
 (3) It is used where Joseph washed his face (Gen. 
 xliii, 30). Was that immersion? 
 
 (4) It is translated in Jonathan's Targum by " washed 
 his face with his tears." '^ 
 
 (5) It is of the same root of and akin to, raehash,^ " to 
 pour out." 
 
 (6) It is translated nipto in the Septuagint repeatedly, 
 and several times where it is wash {ek) out of the laver, 
 Hebrew min^ out of. % 
 
 The washing effected by rachats in the Bible, was by 
 only a little over one fifth of a pint of water, when not out 
 
 ■••• Shazzag min dimshon. 
 ■\ Rachash efudU (Castell). 
 X See the Laver Baptisms. 
 
WASHING, CLEANSING, BAPTISM. 341 
 
 of the laver. Hence the washing, out of the jars, as given 
 in John ii, 6, George Campbell, A. Campbell, render 
 (Mark vii, 3), " Wash their hands often by pouring a little 
 water on them/^ Nipto is the word there used. Hinton 
 (Baptist) cites Jahn, Koenoel, etc. to sustain this rendering. 
 (7) In Arabic rachats, wash, and in ^thiopic, means 
 primarily to sweat, perspire, sweat copiously. Then it 
 means to wash, be washed, cleansed. Intensified, it is 
 rachash in ^thiopic, and means ^^to bedew, make wet, 
 same as the Hebrew rachats^ to moisten, to water." ^ 
 
 WASH- 
 
 -VD^ — Aouu) — BAPTIZE IN THE NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 (8) Nipto [v£'n:ra»], wash is the translation of the He- 
 brew word matar, to rain, shed forth water. It always 
 implies aifasion. Its noun occurs in the Bible thirty-seven 
 times, always implying affusion. The verb is rendered 
 by the Greek (brechoj) rain, ten times. Yet this word is 
 rendered nipto, wash. Nay — 
 
 (9) The place in our verson seized on as a favorite text 
 by immersionists — Leviticus vii, 28, " rinsed in water " — 
 is in the Greek washed or besprinkled with water.| 
 
 (10) Rachats in Hebrew is often rendered in the Septu- 
 agint version by louo, wash, in Greek, which no lexicon 
 ever issued ever defined by immerse, dip, or plunge, but 
 by wash, cleanse. Whenever louo is rendered by a modal 
 word it is either sprinkle, or pour, or both. See below. 
 
 (11) Rachats is rendered by pluno in the LXX also. 
 which all lexicons render wash, and whenever modal, it 
 is always sprinkle, or pour, or both. See below on it. 
 
 ^Maduit, humidus fuit, i. q. Heb. Vni, madefecit, rigavit Castell, 
 Heptagl. 3721. 
 
 t Matar ; Greel:, l3pex(o. 
 X K?.i'(jei i'^art, khisei hudati. 
 
342 BAPTISM. 
 
 (12) This word rachats, thus translated and used in the 
 Bible before apostolic times, is translated baptize {tabhal) 
 frequently by the ancient Hebrew (Chaldee) Targums. 
 
 Is it not refreshingly cool, then, in Dr. Gale, indorsed 
 by Drs. Graves, Carson, etc. etc., to say, " The word ra- 
 chats always includes dipping and never signifies less'^? 
 
 3. Loiio \_Uua}] thus used, rendered also baptize in Sy- 
 riac in Susanna, as shown in the chapter on Versions, is the 
 word immersionists render as they do rachats in Hebrew, 
 by " to bathe,'' instead of wash or cleanse, as if bathe were 
 a religious or ceremonial use of water ! Dr. Graves clings 
 desperately to bathe. 
 
 Liddell & Scott's English edition: ^^Louo, to wash; 
 properly, to wash the body ; also to pour [water for wash- 
 ing] ;" * ^'Loutrisy a woman employed to wash Minerva's 
 Temple." Here her name is a " washer." Was the tem- 
 ple dipped ? 
 
 What are the additional facts here ? The native Greek 
 lexicographer, Galen, born A. d. 130, defining this word louo, 
 puts it thus : ^' Louo, to wash, to pour, or sprinkle." The 
 Eti/mologicon, a native Greek lexicon, defines it thus: "To 
 sprinkle, to besprinkle, and to wash.^f Hesychius thus: 
 To sprinkle, to besprinkle, etc.! 
 
 Pickering, in his later new edition of his Greek lexi- 
 con, gives it: "Loutrorij pi. [plural] loutra, libations for 
 the dead." ^'Loutrophoros, one who brings water for bath- 
 ing (Euripides, 358) ; a youth of either sex who brought 
 water and poured it on the tomb of an unmarried person, 
 (Demos., 1086, 15, etc.). Here the Greek word wash, 
 
 * Ingham (Baptist), Hand-Book on Bap., p. 445, thus also cites him. 
 t Alovdo) [asperffo'] Karaxeetv ei lovkv (Stephanus's Thesaurus). 
 X Alovdo, Ka-avrTif/cai, perfundere, rigai'e, 6td?ie?iVfj.evov, igitur est pro 
 a'lovTjcai. S.'s Thesaurus sub ?iovu. 
 
WASHING, CLEANSING, BAPTISM. 343 
 
 "bathe/' in verb and noun forms alike, refer to wash, bathe 
 as effected generally by affusion, not by immersion. .• 
 
 Under ^'loutrocheo^^ Pickering, so much relied on by 
 Dr. Graves, gives, ^' to pour out water for bathing J' 
 
 Henry Stephanus's Thesaurus, the most elaborate lexicon 
 of the Greeek ever published in the world, defines loiio 
 thus: "To w^ash. In Hippocrates [a Greek medical 
 author] it is not merely to wash, but also to sprinkle. In 
 like manner Galen uses it in his lexicon where — ^ for these 
 are appointed, some to pour cold, the others to pour warm 
 water upon those who are bathing.' " " Loutrochoos, pour- 
 iug water for washing" — "sprinkled wdth cold water."* 
 Let us now hear several of the latest and greatest Greek 
 lexicons on wash. 
 
 Rost and Palm and Passow all define it alike, as well 
 as the still later Pape, 1874, Liddell & Scott, thus : " Louo, 
 to wash ', properly to wash the body ; also to pour [water 
 for washing]." f Passow, Rost, and Palm, under hallo, 
 which some think was the root of hapto, say, " In the 
 middle voice, to sprinkle oneself, ... to pour, to pour 
 out, to sprinkle the water upon the body, i. e. to bathe; 
 . . , to besprinkle oneself with bath-water J' % 
 Likewise Pape, under ballo : "That is, to besprinkle 
 oneself with the bath- waters." § How does this "pan 
 
 * 'ETTLfjallelv {6e ■&epjLcbv) IeTieovgl, . . . aqumn ad lavandam fandens, 
 frigida perfundor. 
 
 tThis pet of immersionists still thus defines it, with the bracketed 
 words as above, but Drisdel took it out of the American Edition, as in 
 baptidzo, to appease Baptist fury. 
 
 t Im med. sich besprengen, xpoa lovrpolg {louo), wegiessen, ausgiessen, 
 sprengen, . . . lovrpa ettI xpoog {louo), i. e. baden, . . . wasser in ein 
 gefass giessen, XP'^'^- 
 
 § AovTpolg, SICH MIT BADE-WASSER BESPRENGEN. Here louo wash is 
 pour and sprinJde for the bath. BalAw . . . XP^^^ ^alleaOai lovrpoi^, sich 
 mit bade-wasser besprengen. 
 
344 BAPTISM. 
 
 out" for immerse as the bathe of the Greeks? But hear 
 once more Liddell & Scott, Dr. Graves^s favorite lexicon. 
 Under chutla, plural noun from cheo, to pour " water for 
 washing or bathing.'^ ^^ Hence chutho, to wash, bathe, 
 anoint." Thus from pour comes wash, bathe again. 
 
 Another word for sprinkle, hudraino, is defined by lexi- 
 cons thus : " To wash, sprinkle, wet, moisten, bedew, pour 
 out." * Does rachats or louo, wash, ^' always include dip- 
 ping and never signify less"?t Liddell & Scott define 
 loutrisy noun from louo, wash : " A woman employed to 
 wash Minerva^s temple J^ How did she dip or immerse this 
 Avonder of the world. It is in order for some good im- 
 mersionist to rise and speak. Rachats ^ wash, is rendered 
 often by the Greek Avord jjZi^no in the Bible. Native 
 Greeks define bapto and baptidzo by piano, wash, also. 
 
 Stephanus defines pluno by wash, cleanse, and also by 
 'Ho wash with tears, pour forth tears," and " to make wet," 
 " watering by sprinkling with warm water." % 
 
 Passow, Rost, Palm, Pape define it in substance as tlie 
 first pluno, " to wash, wash off, cleanse, purify," . . . funda- 
 mentally "to moisten, wet; Latin, to rain, flow." § 
 
 Tlius we see that pluno, Avash, comes from the Avord 
 rain, sustaining all our views on philology and annihi- 
 lating the bold assertions that Avash necessarily implies 
 dip or that it implies it at all. Pour comes to mean Avash. 
 Sprinkle means to wash. Rain comes to mean to wash. 
 Yet they say Avash, bathe, implies immersion. 
 
 * Graves gives it as above. 
 
 t Gale's Keflec. Wall's History Inf. Baptism ; A. Campbell's Chris. 
 Baptism, pp. 85-6; Chris. Baptist, 1101. 
 
 XLachrymas eff under e . . . madefacere et irrigaJis perfusio aqua fcr- 
 vida (Thesaurus Greek Lin., Stephanus). 
 
 § Passow: Tilvvu, waschen, spiilen, auswaschen, abspiilen, reinigen. 
 . . . auschelten, strafen, wie unser einem den kopf waschen, . . . be- 
 netzen. befouchten, wo denn das Lat. phin v. iJ>io. 
 
WASHING, CLEANSING, BAPTISM. 345 
 
 In the Latin, as especially we have seen that all Latin- 
 Greek lexicons translate l3anTi!^a>, baptidzoj by lavo, wash, 
 when they come to the New Testament meaning of that 
 word, we give all the best standards and latest. 
 
 1. Schiller & Luenemann^ edited by F. P. Leverett 
 {Magnum Tot.), etc. : '^ Law (louo, Greek), to be washed, 
 to bathe. Figuratively, to wash or bathe ; i. e. to moisten, 
 besprinkle, bedew. Also to wash away, to remove.^' 
 
 2. Freund^s great work verbatim as the above. 
 
 3. Ainsworth : " Lavo, to wash, to rinse, to bathe, to 
 besprinkle." 
 
 4. White (1873) : ^^Lavo (akin to h)uaj), to wash, batbe, 
 lave; to bathe oneself, to bathe; to wash, of the sea, to 
 flow over, wet; of tears — to wet, moisten, bathe, bedev/, 
 to sprinkle, wet." 
 
 As in all the cases, so here, wherever mode is expressed 
 it is affusion. Yet they will tell you that wash was always 
 to immerse in the Bible! 
 
 The laver baptism further confirms all the above. John 
 ii, 6, shows it incontrovertibly as well. Compare 2 Kings 
 iii, 11; Numbers xix, 21, 22; Leviticus x, 34; xv, 34-36; 
 Lightfoot's Horffi Heb. 2, p. 416. '^Elisha poured the 
 water on the hands of Elijah" for his washing. This 
 also Lightfoot^s facts from the rabbins demonstrate : They 
 allot one fourth part of a log for the washing of one per- 
 son's hands; it may be of two; half a log for three or 
 four; a whole log for five to ten, nay, to one hundred, 
 Avith this provision, saith Rabbi Jose, that the last that 
 washeth hath no less than a fourth part of a log for him- 
 self. A log is five sixths (f) of a pint. Now how could 
 two persons be w^ashed with the fourth of five sixths of a 
 pint? One hundred washed with five sixths of a pint of 
 water. Could thev immerse their hands in it? Could 
 
346 BAPTISM. 
 
 one man immerse both hands in one ninth of a pint? 
 Does not this show it was by sprinkling? In Lightfoot, 
 from folio 21, 22, we read of Rabbi Abika, who being in 
 prison, washed with half the water brought him to drink. 
 Did he immerse his hands in the drinking vessel? No 
 such thing was demanded or practiced. Yet in the face of 
 all these undenied and undeniable records, with not one 
 item to the contrary to be found any where, immersionists 
 set up the claim that rachats, louo, nipto, lavo — wash — im- 
 plies immerse every time in the Bible; that wash is derived 
 from immerse — a thing so absolutely preposterous that not 
 a word that properly and strictly means immerse in the 
 whole world in any language ever means wash, or one that 
 means properly to dip as its primary meaning. On the 
 contrary, wash is constantly derived from words that pri- 
 marily mean to sprinkle, to pour, to moisten or wet, to 
 water, to flow, rain, shed forth. They all teach that bap- 
 tldzo does mean to wash or apply to it ; that baptklzo was 
 implied always in the rachats, louo. 
 
MODEEN COMMENTATOES AND CEITICS. 347 
 
 CHAPTER XXX. 
 
 Modern Commentators and Critics. 
 
 Imraersionists cite commentators who admit, as all men 
 do, that sometimes baptidzo means immerse and apply it 
 as an admission that it never means sprinkle or pour or 
 admits of baptism by such modes. Examples innumer- 
 able could be given from their earliest authorities to their 
 latest. But we forbear to cite them so often. 
 
 1. Alford, on Mark vii, 4: "The haptmnoi, as applied 
 to hlinoi (couches at meals), were certainly not immersions, 
 but sprinklings or affusions of water/^ On Acts ii, 41, 
 vol. 2, p. 25, he says, "Almost without doubt this first 
 baptism must have been administered, as that of the first 
 Gentile converts was (see chap, x, p. 47, and note), by affu- 
 sion or sprinkling, not by immersion. Italics his. 
 
 2. Fairbairn: "The ^divers' [in Hebrews ix, 10 — ^di- 
 vers baptisms'] evidently points to the several uses of 
 water, such as we know to have actually existed under the 
 law — sprinklings, washings, bathings." * 
 
 Baumgarten, another of the great modern scholars of 
 Europe, German, " The Baptism of Saul '' . . . he " is bap- 
 tized ... by means of the water poured upon him.^f 
 Again, "With a part of the same water" used in washing 
 the apostles' stripes, "the keeper of the prison and all his 
 
 * Hermeneut. Manual, Art. Baptidzo. 
 tCom. on Acts ix, 1-36, p. 238-9. 
 
348 BAPTISM. 
 
 were baptized . . . without the dipping of the whole 
 body in the open, running water/^* 
 
 4. Bengel, a universal favorite with all critics, ^^ Gno- 
 mon/^ a commentary, like Alford's and Baumgarten's, 
 only for the critical scholar : ^' Immersion in baptism, or 
 at least the sprinkling of water upon the person, repre- 
 sented burial; burial is a confirmation of death.^^ On 
 Eomans vi, 4, vol. 3. 
 
 5. Stier, one of the most careful, able, and volumi- 
 nous of German commentators, says, ^' Baptidzo occurs 
 often in the sense of mere washing.'^ He supposes at 
 times they may have been ^^ dipped, ^^ ^Svhere otherwise 
 baptism be administered by sprinkling, as probably with 
 the thousands on the day of Pentecost/^ Reden Jesu, 
 viii, 307, note. 
 
 6. Bloomfield, Greek text on Hebrews ix, 10: Bap- 
 tisms — "Bap. denotes those ceremonial ablutions of various 
 sorts, some respecting priests, others the people at large, 
 detailed in Leviticus and Numbers." On Acts viii, 38: 
 " Philip seems to have taken up water with his hands and 
 poured it copiously on the eunuch's head.'' Mark vii, 4, 
 he urges, ^^is not implied immersion." 
 
 7. Olshausen, one of the greatest and best commenta- 
 tors of any age, and the most impartial and profound, says 
 on John iii, 25-27, '' The dispute was on baptism — Jcatha- 
 rismos, equivalent to baptisma (baptism)." Mark vii, 4: 
 "Ablutions of all sorts, among the rest those applicable 
 to the priest (Ex. xxix, 18, sq. with Heb. ix, 10), were 
 common among the Jews. Baptismos is here as in He- 
 brews ix, 10, ablution, washing generally; klinai here, 
 couches on which the ancients were wont to recline at 
 meals." Here he held that the legal sprinklings of John 
 
 *Ibid., Acts xvi, 11-40, p. 134, vol. 2. 
 
MODERN COMMENTATORS AND CRITICS. 349 
 
 iii, 25-27; of the priests (Ex. xxix, 4, etc.), were the 
 "diverse baptisms" of Paul (Heb. ix, 10). That the 
 couches of dining were baptized as the Jews did — by 
 affusion. Again, on Acts ii, he concludes the three thou- 
 sand were baptized by sprinkling — "The difficulty can 
 only be removed by supposing that they already employed 
 mere sprinkling/' etc. (vol. 4, 383). 
 
 8. Gerhard, of whom the late most scholarly Tholuck 
 says,* "The most learned, and with the learned, the 
 most beloved among the heroes of Lutheran orthodoxy," 
 says, "Whether a man is baptized by immersion into 
 water, or by sprinkling, or applying the water to him, it 
 is the same" (Doc. Theol. ix, 137). 
 
 9. Eeinhard: "Earthly or perceptible, pure, natural 
 water in which a person is immersed, or with which he is 
 partially sprinkled, is the baptism instituted by Christ." 
 (Dogmat. pp. 570-572). Also— 
 
 10. Carpzovif "Baptism is a Greek word, and in 
 itself means a washing, in whatever way performed, 
 whether by immersion in water, or by aspersion. . . It is 
 not restricted to immersion or aspersion; hence it has 
 been a matter of indifference from the beginning whether 
 to administer baptism by immersion or by pouring of 
 water" (Issagoge, p. 1085). 
 
 11. A. Clark: "AVere the people dipped or sprinkled? 
 for it is certain baj^to and baptidzo mean both." J The 
 same in substance he says on Mark vii, 4; Mark x, IG ; 
 Acts xvi, 32. He considers Romans vi, 4, refers to im- 
 mersion among Jews in proselyte baptism, but that John 
 
 * In Herzog's Cyclop. 
 
 t Carpzov ranks among the most learned, along with the Buxtorfs, 
 Lightfoots, Pococks, etc. 
 I On Matthew iii, 6. 
 
350 BAPTISM. 
 
 baptized by sprinkling as well as those under the apostles 
 most generally. 
 
 12. Lightfoot: ^^ The word therefore, baptis7nous {wash- 
 ings), applied to all these [people, Pharisees, and all the 
 Jews (verse 3), vessels, beds of Mark vii, 4], properly 
 and strictly, is not to be taken of dipping or plunging, 
 but, in respect of some things, of washing only, and in 
 respect of others, of sprinkling only.^^"^ 
 
 13. Archbishop Kendrick (Catholic) has been mis- 
 quoted so often, we cite him. On Hebrews ix, 10 — " Bap- 
 tism" — he says, "St. Paul calls the various ablutions of 
 the old law, many of which were by aspersions, divers 
 baptisms. . . Thus it appears manifest that the term was 
 in his time used indiscriminately for all kinds of ablu- 
 tion" (On Baptism, p. 188). See him also page 322J on 
 Patristic Baptism — Augustine. 
 
 14. J. Wesley: "The Greek word [baptize] means in- 
 differently either washing or sprinkling." Mark vii, 4. 
 He argues that John did not immerse but sprinkled the 
 multitudes he baptized ; and the three thousand and five 
 thousand in Acts, as well as the jailer, Saul, etc. were all 
 baptized by affusion. He holds that Hebrews x, 22, 
 alludes to the ancient manner of baptizing by sprinkling; 
 while Romans vii, 4 ; Colossians ii, 12, allude to immersion 
 as an ancient practice. See his note on Colossians ii, 12. 
 
 15. Beza, sixteenth century. The way Beza is habitu- 
 ally quoted may be seen in the various immersion works, 
 as he is the favorite authority.^- Now, Avhile Beza says 
 
 * Horse Hebraicse et Tal. ii, 419, Eng. Ed. In edition of 1658, vol. 1, 
 in Evang. Marci vii, 4, Vox ergo ^aTz-iciiov^ ad hcec omnia applicata, 2)ro- 
 prie et stricte non acdpienda est de iinctione aut immersione, sed quoad 
 nonnulla de latione idniiim, et quoad nonmdla de aspersio7ie tantum. 
 
 tSee Graves-Ditzler Debate, p. 520-1, as an example — same as in all 
 standard authorities by immersionist'^. 
 
MODERN COMMENTATORS AND CRITICS. ^Vol 
 
 a part of what tliey cite, yet they stop short and leave him 
 testifying for their views and against affusion as baptism, 
 just as they do Terretinus, Vossius, Witsius, Stephanus, 
 Scapula, etc., etc. Here is what Beza says: ^'Baptidzes- 
 thai in this place (Mark vii, 4) is more than cherniptem 
 [wash the hands], because that seems to be understood of 
 tlie whole body, this merely of the hands. Neither in- 
 deed does baptidzein signify to wash except by consequence. 
 For properly it expresses immersion for the purpose of 
 dyeing/' He then refers to Matthew iii, 11, where he de- 
 fines it not only by '' mergere/^ to sink, but by '^ madeja- 
 cere,'' to make wet, and ^' tlngere/^ to wet, to dye. That 
 it answers to the Hebrew tabhal rather than to rachats and 
 is used to express washing and cleansing.^ Like Schleus- 
 ner, Stokius, Witsius, Suicer, etc. he believes wash was 
 a derived meaning from immerse as the classic meaning 
 most in use. But, like them, he held that from wash, 
 cleanse, it came to mean washing, cleansing, without re- 
 gard to mode, and that affusion Avas practiced by the 
 apostles for baptism, as the following words Avill shoAv: 
 Acts i, 5: ^'John indeed baptized with water.'' Beza 
 says on this passage, " With the Holy Spirit. The prep. 
 en is rightly omitted. ... As if Christ had said, John 
 indeed baptized you, but the Holy Spirit shall baptize 
 you. But here is a double antithesis, if I mistake not, 
 . . . when from the one [Father] emanated the Holy 
 Spirit, the other is of the water poured by John and of 
 the Holy Spirit falling upon the apostles, which mission 
 
 ^ Ut lavcmdi et abhtendi, et loHonis vocabrdo (Beza's Annot. on Matt, 
 iii, 11, folio ed. 1598). What he says on amad is, in the above, that 
 amad dioe% not differ from it. But he there had .said lapiidzo meant 
 " madefacere;' to moisten, make wet; to Avash, then, M^as as above shown. 
 It reads, '^madefacere et mergere;' and of that coming to mean hamad 
 \_amad'}, quo utuntur Syri pro haptizare. 
 
352 BAPTISM. 
 
 of the Holy Spirit and pouring [of the water by John] 
 is called by metaphor baptism.'^ He thinks this "an- 
 tithesis is better understood/^* Here Beza shows that 
 he held the old theory that, first, baptidzo, in classic 
 usage generally meant immerse ; second, as usual with 
 them all, he finds that meaning to it in the later Greek 
 writers, Plutarch being his first citation; third, that it 
 came to mean wash, cleanse, by consequence ; fourth, that 
 from wash, cleanse, it came to mean wash, cleanse with- 
 out regard to mode; fifth, that pouring became the set- 
 tled practice of baptism even in John's day. 
 
 16. Terretinus, seventeenth century, a great author- 
 ity, is cited for immersion constantly. Like Beza, he held 
 that baptidzo properly meant to immerse in the classics of 
 the age of Plutarch, etc. That it came to mean to wash, 
 to cleanse, by consequence. We need not cite all he says, 
 but admit it to the full. Yet he goes on to say, "There 
 are not wanting various reasons for sprinkling also : (1) 
 Because the word baptiamou and the verb baptidzesthai are 
 not spoken [or used] merely of immersion, but also of 
 sprinkling (Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38)/'t Then follow five 
 arguments to sustain his position, urging that in the apos- 
 tolic day, as on Pentecost, etc. the baptism was by sprink- 
 ling. 
 
 17. Witsius, A.D. 1685, held that "it is not to be sup- 
 posed that immersion was so necessary to baptism as that 
 the rite could not be performed by perfusion or sprinkling. 
 
 ■* Johannes quidem vos haptizavit, sed spiritus sancius vos hapUzabit. 
 Hie autem est antithesis duplex^ ni jailor, una Johannis cum Christo vel 
 Deo Patre, nam post (SaTrri^fjaedE, id est haptizahimini . . . altera est 
 aquce a Joanne effuse, ei spiritus sancti Apostolis mitiendi ; qucB spiV' 
 Hits sancti et effuslo hie translatitie vocatur haptism.us. 
 
 tRaiiones etiam, pro aspertione non desunt varice; (1) Quia vox jSaTrna' 
 jiov et verhuiin f^aKri^iGdui, non tantum de immersione diciiur, sed et de 
 aspersione (Mark vii, 4; Luke xi, 38). 
 
MODERN COMMENTATORS AND CRITICS. o-Jo 
 
 . . . It is more probable that the three thousand who 
 Avere baptized in one day (Acts ii, 41), were perfused or 
 sprinkled with water, than immersed.'^ He then gives his 
 reasons, and adds again, '' Neither is it credible that Cor- 
 nelius, and Lydia, and the jailer, baptized in private 
 liouses along with their families, had baptisteries in which 
 they could be wholly immersed. Vossius brings examples 
 of perfusion from antiquity, etc/' ^^ (2) '' It is granted that 
 baptidzein properly signifies to sink, yet also more gen- 
 erally it is used for any kind of cleansing, as Luke xi, 28/' 
 Here he cites authorities again, and goes on to cite Scrip- 
 ture for baptism, '^for pouring," and " for sprinkling." 
 
 18. Vossius holds the same views as tlie above, and need 
 not be further cited, since Witsius cites him for his views. 
 Vossius gives as a leading New Testament meaning of 
 baptidzo, "To sprinkle, or wash the body of any one sac- 
 mmentally (Matt, iii, ll)."t 
 
 The list could be indefinitely extended, but to what 
 good purpose? These are the masters, the others merely 
 repeat. But these authors, by extensively applying their 
 views of baptidzoj show how recklessly immersionists have 
 
 -Hermanni Witsi, . . . "De (Economia Feed. Dei, 1685, p. 672, xiv, 6, 
 Non tamen existamandum est, adeo ad baptisrmim necessariam esse im- 
 mersionem, ut perfusione vel aspersione rite peragi non possit. Nam et 
 pe7"fusio ac adspersio hahent quo se tueantur. 1. Non si a2>osiolos mersisse 
 comperiamus, eo riiwn hunc semper observasse consequitur. Probabllius 
 est, eos ter mille, qui una die bapiizabantur (Acts ii, 1), aqua perfusos vel 
 adspersos, qudm mersos esse. . . . Neque credibile est, Cornelium et Ly- 
 diam, et commentariensem, in pHvatis cedibus una cum snis, baptizatos, 
 baptisteria ad manum habuisse, quibus toti immergi potuerint. Perfu- 
 sionis exemjila ex antiquitaie attulit Vossius Disput. 1. De Baptis. Th., 
 ix, quae, eadem ordine, dissimulato tamen Vossii nomhiee, Lexico suo Anti- 
 quitatum Eccles. p. 66, inseruit Joshua Arndius. 2. Licet (SaiTTiCeiv pro- 
 prie signijicet mergere, tamen etiam generalius usupatiir de quolicunqnc 
 ablutione; ut Luc. xi, 38, etc. . . . De Superfusione . . . De Adspersione.^ 
 
 f Vossius, "■Adspergere sen ahluere corpus alicuijus sacrementaltter" 
 (Matt, iii, 11). 
 23 
 
;].j4 IJAl'TISM. 
 
 used their assertions, and bow wildly and viciously they 
 interpreted the old-school lexicographers. 
 
 ] 9-21. Drs. Jameson, Fausset, and Brown, in their crit- 
 ical commentary, adopt Olshausen's words on Acts ii, 41, 
 just quoted, and even on Philip and the eunuch adopt 
 the view of Bloomfield, Baumoarten, and others, saying, 
 '^ Probably laving the water upon him" (Acts viii, 38). 
 
 22. Wall, constantly misrepresented, says, " The word 
 haptidzo in the Scriptures signifies to wash in general, with- 
 out determining the sense to this or that sort of washing." 
 He urges its use in Scripture is not that of secular authors. 
 Then says of the Scripture use of haptidzo that it applies to 
 such washing '^as is by pouring or rubbing water on the 
 thing or person washed, or some part of it" (vol. 1, 536-7, 
 ed. 1862, by H. Cullon, London). He then quotes Mark vii, 
 where they are to wash their hands. He cites 2 Kings 
 iii, 11, to ])rove it was by water poured on them. He then 
 says, '^ Now this washing of the hands is called by St. Luke 
 the baptizing of a man" (Luke xi, 38). Again, "And 
 the divers w^ashings of the Jews arc called diaphoroi hap- 
 iismoi — diverse baptisms (Heb. ix, 10). Of which some were 
 by bathing, others by sprinkling (Num. viii, 2)," etc. On 
 patristic baptisms we cite only one out of many he cites 
 (vol. 2, p. 520): " Origen here does plainly call pouring 
 water on a thing baptizing it." He then cites the baptism 
 of the altar, given far more fully in thisw^ork. Wall does 
 complain bitterly of parties Avho merely touched the child 
 with a few drops of water — opposes such sprinkling, but 
 proves to his own satisfaction that sprinkling and pouring 
 are baptism according to the Bible and the fathers. 
 
 23. Lange, held as an immersionist, says, on John i, 26, 
 " ^ I baptize,' etc. ... I baptize only with w^ater ; the 
 baptism of the Spirit is reserved to the Messiah. . . . The 
 
MODERN CO^IMENTATORS AND CRITICS. oOO 
 
 Messiah is the proper Baptist of the Prophets, and his 
 [the questioner] implied assertion — your interpretation of 
 Ezekiel xxxvi, 25 — is false. But because this true Baptist 
 is here, I with my water baptism prepare him for baptiz- 
 ing with the Spirit/' 
 
 Here Lange holds, with Rossenmiiller, Havernick, 
 Bleek, etc., that the '^sprinkle with clean water'' of Ezekiel 
 xxxvi, 26, was held by all Jews as baptism. 
 
 Again, on John iii, 5 — "born of water" — Lange refers 
 to Ezekiel xxxvi, 25 — "Then will I sprinkle clean water 
 upon you" — as the baptism implied, as well as to Isaiah i, 
 16; Jeremiah xxxiii, 8, etc. [on John iii, 5]. 
 
 24. M. Stuart is so often so garbled as to misrepresent 
 him altogether, which necessitates a long quotation from 
 him: "We have also seen, in Nos, 2, 5, 6, of examples 
 from the Septuagint and Apocrypha, that the Avord baptidzo 
 sometimes means to ivashj^nd bapto to moisten, to wet, or 
 bedew. There is, then, no absolute certainty, from usage, 
 that the word baptidzo, when applied to designate the rite 
 of baptism, means of course to immerge or plunge' ' (p. 76). 
 Dr. Graves's ed. 1856, p. 73, he had proved that baptidzo 
 was employed "to designate the idea of copious affusion or 
 effusion, in a figurative manner." Page 84 he says of bap- 
 tidzo, *'Both the classic use and that of the Septuagint 
 show that washing and copious affusion are sometimes 
 signified by this word." Page 158— all in italics—" No in- 
 junction is any where given in the New Testament respect- 
 ing the manner in which this rite shall be performed." 
 " My belief is that we do obey the command to baptize 
 when we do it by aifusion or sprinkling" (p. 195). 
 
 On page 185 he urges that Baptists rely "on the exe- 
 gesis of the fathers and the ancient churches. New Tes- 
 tament usasie of the word in cases not relevant to this rite 
 
3o6 BAPTISM. 
 
 clearly does not entitle you to such a conclusion with any 
 confidence." Like Terretinus and others, he refers to the 
 primitive and ancient church as distinct from the apostolic 
 or New Testament church. He believes the three thou- 
 sand (Acts ii, 41) and the five thousand, as well as Saul, 
 the jailer, etc., were all baptized by aifusion, and that Ro- 
 mans vi, 3, 4, does not refer to water baptism and was not 
 immersion. 
 
 25. Dr. Barnes, being so often cited by immersionists, 
 says of baptidzo, "Fourth. It can not be proved from an 
 examination of the passages in the Old and New Testa- 
 ments that the idea of a complete immersion ever was 
 connected with the word or that it ever in any case 
 occurred"^ (Notes on Matthew iii, 6). 
 
 26. To these could be added Tholuck, Ebrard, Haver- 
 nick, Kiihnoel, Bleek, Henstenburg, Rossenmiiller, Schaaf, 
 Watson, Geo. Hill, Doddridge, John Locke; but it is a 
 waste of time and space to cite so many. But we close 
 with the illustrious and renowned Lightfoot, the greatest 
 luminary in these matters in that century of learning, the 
 seventeenth. Luke iii, 16: "I baptize you," etc. "These 
 seem to have been the words that he used in sprinkling 
 or applying the water: 'I baptize thee,'" etc. "^Witli 
 water/ " in the Greek it is indifferently with or in, answer- 
 able to the Hebrew preposition either local or instru- 
 mental." "So it is almost as little to be doubted that 
 when they were there [into the river] he threw and sprink- 
 led the water upon them." AVorks, vol. 4, p, 279, Lon- 
 don, 1822. Of Christ's baptism he says, "He went into 
 the water, had water sprinkled on him" (Ibid., p. 305). 
 
 *But when he precedes this by saying that •* baptize signifies orig- 
 inally to tinge, to dye, to stain^ he puts himself along with the careless 
 class we have had to criticise so often ; for all know that baptidzo has no 
 viK'h moaning, Init hapto lias. 
 
MODERN COMMENTATORS AND CRITICS. 357 
 
 CYCLOPEDIAS. 
 
 Dr. Graves and A. Campbell parade the testimony of 
 cyclopedias. We could parade a number also, but as they 
 merely copy each other, some abridging, the ten Dr. 
 Graves (Debate, pp. 510, 511) adduces merely following 
 Wall in the main. But the first one he quotes (Edinburgh 
 Encyclopedia), and most elaborately, states what every 
 scholar versed in the facts knows to be utterly untrue 
 when it says, " In the Assembly of Divines, held at West- 
 minster in 1643, it Avas keenly debated whether immersion 
 or sprinkling should be adopted; twenty-five voted for 
 sprinkling and twenty-four voted for immersion," etc. 
 He then tells of Dr. Lightfoot, etc. This is utterly un- 
 true as narrated. The facts are, the only debated question 
 Avas, Avhether, in addition to sprinkling, ministers should 
 be allowed to immerse where parties preferred or whether 
 they should not be so allowed, and that was defeated. It 
 was not debated whether they should allow of sprinkling 
 or immersion. As Dr. G.'s first authority so falsifies these 
 well-known historic facts, we pass all the rest. 
 
3o8 BAPTISM. 
 
 CHAPTER XXXI. 
 
 co^X"LUSIO^^ 
 
 And now, dear reader, with the f raits of years of most 
 painful study and research before you, in all fairness and 
 kindness, with a serene trust and earnest hope that this 
 controversy will speedily terminate, we do most solemnly 
 and in the fear of God arraign before the bar of all these 
 crushing facts our immersionist friends, and openly charge 
 them Avith the awful responsibility of the divisions and 
 rents in the body of Christ, the strifes and bad blood that 
 have been too often engendered by their narrow proscrip- 
 tions and intolerant aggressions. For years they have 
 waged a dogmatic war all along the ecclesiastical lines. 
 At times, when infidelity and crime were going hand in 
 hand together through the land, smiting and threatening 
 the very stability of society itself and sapping all the 
 foundations of virtue, they have draAvn oif from the al- 
 most shattered and bleeding columns of the struggling 
 army of truth and actually poured in a volley upon the 
 worn flanks of the advancing yet reeling columns of the 
 holy cause. In the fearful struggles of the great Refor- 
 mation they turned against the heroic Luther and chilled 
 the warm zeal of whole States. They split the Reforma- 
 tion. They filled the land with civil wars. They almost 
 shattered the columns on which all Europe depended for 
 deliverance from the thraldom and tyranny of besotted 
 Rome. Even in the present age their historians boast ot 
 
CONCLLTISIOX. '60V 
 
 this crime against society and the world. Starting out 
 with a cause so wretched, so destitute of fact, reason, or 
 liistoric support, they have felt compelled from the start to 
 garble authorities, misquote, interpolate, and blur and blot 
 every record they have touched in history or literature. 
 Hence it has been most common for their partisan writers to 
 add to these offenses the crime of personal defamation and 
 slander against all who boldly deny to them an entire 
 infallibility on these questions. To break the force of 
 exposure and opposition they often carry their opponent 
 through all the distorting organs of detraction and abuse, 
 while men who were besotted with prejudice and steeped 
 in ignorance are held up as gods if they but support their 
 cause. 
 
 To add to the evil, many of them have aimed with too 
 much success to elevate a single command that had nevei* 
 before been hinted by Christ, never insisted on in the case 
 of blessing any mortal while among the people over three 
 years, into the old Pharisaical idea of ^^the great com- 
 mandment," while they boldly proceed, like their predeces- 
 sors in ecclesiastical narrowness, to unchurch ainvho fail 
 to repeat their shibboleth. They have proceeded to blur 
 and blot the simple, beautiful rite instituted by Christ, 
 until the symbol of life is distorted into the supposed like- 
 ness of death. Baptism is a door. It is a death. It is a 
 burial. It is a resurrection. It is a seal of pardon. It 
 is a seal of the covenant. It is an initiatory rite. It is for 
 remission. It is regeneration with others. Verily, is it 
 not a god ? They have so covered up the beautiful sym- 
 bolism of this rite with the huge and indigestible mass of 
 the debris of the old and wornout rubbish of antiquity and 
 heathen superstition that it is a task from which a Hercules 
 would have fled, to relieve it of the rotten mass, and 
 
360 BAPTISM. 
 
 would have regarded the Atigeaii stable as a breakfast 
 spell. Every fact is distorted that bears on the subject. 
 To such a bold fanaticism have some of them come that 
 they suppose the Eternal will mercifully forgive men who 
 have spurned his offers, insulted his messengers, crucified 
 his Son, trampled on his truth, yet will save them and par- 
 don them of all crimes on confessing that they believe 
 Christ is the Son of God — a fact that they never doubted — ' 
 had believed all the time — and suffer themselves to be 
 dipped in a pond of water ! Yet he will not forgive you 
 though you believe his whole AVord, pray daily, live as 
 spotless as a Paul, and fill the land with the praise of your 
 good deeds it' you fail of a dip of water! 
 
 It is the duty of all to obey God in all things. It is 
 the duty of all to pray, to be baptized, to keep his com- 
 mandments, pay their debts, be charitable. But it is rank 
 idolatry to set up this rite to be honored and adored as 
 above all his commandments. Our Gospel is not bound. 
 Let the broad and noble principles of an enlightened 
 and elevating Christianity expand our minds, enlarge the 
 circle of our thoughts, and redeem us from evil. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 PAGE. 
 
 "^non near Salim," 26, 66-67 
 
 Altar of Elijah baptized, 273 
 
 Amad, Baptist quotations on, 314 
 
 Lexicons on, 314-319 
 
 Literature of, 322-325 
 
 Syriac for baptize, 314 
 
 Versions on, 315-320 
 
 Apo, from, not out of, 31 
 
 Arabic versions on baptism, 328 
 
 Aristotle, haptidzo in, 260 
 
 Authors, blunders of, 1-3, 6 
 
 Baptidzo, lexicons on, 138-167 
 
 Ancient versions on, 311 
 
 Authorities on, 347 
 
 Classic usage of, 88, 217 
 
 How rendered by immersionistS; 101 
 
 How translated (see Translations). 
 
 In later Greek 263 
 
 In the house of its friends, 203 
 
 N. T. vise of, 88, 91, 94, 95 
 
 O. T. and N. T. sense of, 199 
 
 Patristic usage of, 271-289 
 
 Philology of, 168 
 
 Primary meaning of, 226, 301 
 
 Why not translate, 356 
 
 Baptism, administrator of, 11 
 
 Buried by, into death, 46-51 
 
 Design of, 11, 16-22 
 
 Eunuch's, the, 32 
 
 Five thousand and three thousand, 35 
 
 (361) 
 
362 INDEX. 
 
 Baptism, mode of (see Laver, Bapto, Baptidzo, Translations, etc). 
 
 Origin of, 15-21 
 
 Symbolic import of, 72, 73 
 
 With blood, 282 
 
 With tears, 282 
 
 Baptists in harmony, 210 
 
 Bapto, classic occurrences of, 110-122 
 
 Fathers and translations on, 122-125 
 
 In Daniel, 122 
 
 In N. T. and Septuagint, 22 
 
 Lexicons oYi, 106, 107 
 
 Philology of, 127 
 
 Primary meaning of, 126-137 
 
 Koot of baptidzo, 126 
 
 Beza correctly reported, 213 
 
 Born of water, 52 
 
 Bury, meaning of, in Scriptures, 47 
 
 Ceremonial cleansing, 60 
 
 Changes in meaning, 88 
 
 Classic and N. T. Greek, 97 
 
 Classics, use of baptism in, 76, 217, 234 
 
 Codex Sinaiticus, 329 
 
 Commentators and critics, modern, 347 
 
 Conant on baptidzo, 263 
 
 Conclusion, 358 
 
 Convenience, 55 
 
 Criticisms, ancient — errors, 213 
 
 Cyclopedias, 357 
 
 Dale, errors of, 221 
 
 Decency in baptism, 55, 56 
 
 Dip not immerse, 243 
 
 ^/s, to, into, at, etc., 26,30,31 
 
 En, with, and in, 27, 52-55 
 
 Epi, at, to 29 
 
 Facts, summary of, 234-255 
 
 First occurrence of baptism, 308 
 
 Frequent baptisms (washings), 64,65,66 
 
 Gasala, Arabic for baptizo, etc. (see Translations). 
 
 Graves, Dr. J. B., blunders and perversions of, 8, 10, 49, 90, 91, 98, 189- 
 
 141, 143, 150-155. 
 Greek, classic and N. T., 88 
 
INDEX. 363 
 
 Health, 55 
 
 History of baptism, facts on, 284 
 
 Immersion, arguments for, 11-14 
 
 Origin of, 285 
 
 To sink, 169 
 
 Jordan, swift, 39-43 
 
 Josephus on laver, 63 
 
 Kabas, 71 
 
 Laver, baptism at, 57-69 
 
 Laws of science ignored, 232 
 
 Learning in Dark Ages, revival of, 76-87 
 
 Lexicons, 76 
 
 Greek, on bapto, 105 
 
 Liddell & Scott's Lexicon, frequent changes, .... 155, 156, 157, note. 
 
 Louo, wash, pour, 342 
 
 Maimonides misquoted, 69-72 
 
 Matar, 183 
 
 Meanings, primary and derived, 88 
 
 Metaphorical uses, 37 
 
 Novatian, baptism of, 277 
 
 Origin and design of baptism, 15 
 
 Of immersion, 285 
 
 Patristic Greek, baptidzo in, 271-289 
 
 Baptism, 279 
 
 Pentateuch, "wash" in, 60 
 
 Peshito-Syriac, 315 
 
 Philology, 168 
 
 Principles of, 171 
 
 Science of language, 173, 176 
 
 Planted, what implied by, 47 
 
 Pouring, 38 
 
 Primary meaning, . 91-93 
 
 Rachats, to " pour out," 71 
 
 Eoots and their meanings, 92 
 
 Saul, baptism of, 29 
 
 Shataph, Gesenius's definition of, 71 
 
 Solomon's temple, laver in, 61 
 
 Sprinkle or touch baptizes, .... 301-305 
 
 Stain, dye, 133 
 
 Standard folio lexicons, 292 
 
 Symbolic import of baptism, 72 
 
364 INDEX, 
 
 Syriac, the, 311 
 
 Versions, .320 
 
 Tahhal, Hebrew for bajHidzo, 290, 306 
 
 Primary meaning of, 71 
 
 Targum of Jonathan, 19, 63 
 
 Tingo 246 
 
 Drs. Graves and Toy on, 250 
 
 Jerome on, 251 
 
 Lexicons on, 252 
 
 Translations or Versions, 311,328-337 
 
 ^thiopic, 330 
 
 Arabic, 328 
 
 Basmuric, 332 
 
 Coptic, 332 
 
 Egyptian, 332 
 
 German, 335 
 
 Itala, 330, 334 
 
 James's, made by immersionists, 86 
 
 Persic, 333 
 
 Sahidic, 333 
 
 Syriac, 311 
 
 Vulgate, Jerome's 334 
 
 Tertullian first to name dipping for baptism, 281 
 
 Unscientific methods, 221 
 
 Versions (see Translations). 
 
 Wash, 199-202, 338 
 
 Washing familiar to all people, 22 
 
 Words change meaning, 88 
 
DATE DUE 
 
 y-i—*™*^- 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 GAYLORH 
 
 
 PRINTED IN USA