LETTERS ON BAPTISM

LETTER II.

I COME at once to the main question: "What does the word baptize mean?"

The Baptist version substitutes the word "immerse" wherever it occurs: and that translation expresses the Baptist idea. If it expresses the mind of the Spirit, then it ought to be so translated. I used to think that it did: I am very certain now that it does not. The trans-lators of our English Bible were wise in transferring the word ; because, as I will show you, we had no one word in the English language to express the Idea intended.

But what is the idea intended to be conveyed? This is the question at issue. And it is of no use to say that "as it is a mere matter of outward ceremony, it is not worth disputing about." Certainly it

16 Baptism.

is not worth while to cherish a disputatious spirit about anything: but if it were worth while for our Lord and Master to establish such an ordinance at all, it is worth our while to try to find out what he meant by it. Whatever Christ commands, be it something little or great, it is certainly worth our while to try to understand it, so that we may obey it.

So long as there is an honest and wide divergence of views among Christian people so long as one of the largest Protestant denominations separate themselves from their brethren, on this ground alone—it is worth our while trying to find some method of removing the misunderstanding.

If our Baptist brethren are right in maintaining that baptism is immersion, and nothing else, then the rest of us are wrong. If we are right, they are wrong. And I assume that we all alike desire to

Baptism. 17

be right in our understanding of just what Christ requires. In your letter to me you say: "I want to find the truth: nothing else will do anybody any good.' I believe you, and agree with you. Again you say: "I have learned some things every year; I am not beyond learning more." This is certainly the only proper ground for any Christian to stand upon.

Now the question at issue between us turns, and must turn, mainly, if not en-tirely, upon the meaning of the word itself which is used in the Great Commission. That Commission I do not need to quote to you; but it is worth the time that I take to write it, and that it will take you to read it, to have it distinctly before us. Here it is: "Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever É have commanded you" (Matt. 28: 19, 20).

18 Baptism.

If the word "baptizing," found in this Commission, was understood by Christ to mean "immersing," then the minister of the gospel cannot execute it by sprinkling. If the word means "sprinkling," then it could not be fulfilled by immersing. But suppose now it should be found that this word "baptizing" conveys the general idea of "ceremonial cleansing, or ritual purification, by water," then possibly the requirement may be fully met by either immersion, pouring, or sprinkling. In that case, the Baptist theory falls to the ground. If it is a word of particular mode, then that particular mode alone can satisfy the command. If, on the other hand, it is a term of general import, then the question of mode does not enter into the substance of the command at all; and it is left to the administrator, or the person to be baptized, to choose the particular mode according to his best judgment.

Baptism. 19

To make my meaning clear to every one, let me illustrate from the Commission itself. Here are four words of command:

(I) "Go" ; (2) " Disciple," or " Make disciples of" ; (3) " Baptize "; (4) "Teach."

Take the first. "Go" is evidently a word of general import; not a word of particular mode. If a commanding officer in giving orders to a soldier bids him "walk" to a certain place, for the soldier to "ride" would not be obedience. If he orders him to "go on horseback," making the trip in a carriage would not be compliance. But if he commands him simply to "go," the soldier is at liberty to consult his own judgment as to the most fitting method of accomplishing the distance, unless there is something else to indicate the manner of his going; as, for example, there might be a general standing order that all soldiers of a certain class should uniformly go in a certain way.

20 Baptism.

Take the second: "Disciple," or "Make disciples of." I quote the new version, because in the old version two entirely different words in the Greek are translated by the same word. "teach." The new version translates the former as above-- " Make disciples of." It might have used the word "evangelize," transferring the Greek word, and expressing the same idea. Either of these forms of expression is of general import. In obedience to the command, the Christian Church may send out preachers, establish colleges, organize Sunday-schools, instruct the young, build houses of worship, preach in the marketplace, visit from house to house, sing gospel hymns, or do anything else that may be adapted to accomp]ish the work of converting the world. They are not limited to any particular mode of operation in evangelizing the nations.

Take the fourth : "Teaching." This

Baptism. 21

too is a word of general import. In carrying out the commission to teach the people to observe all the things commanded, we may do it orally or we may do it by the printed page. We may circulate Bibles or publish tracts or send out religious books or Christian newspapers. We may teach them privately or publicly, in any and every way as may seem best.

Of the four words of command in this Great Commission three are general. The missionary may go into all the world as best he can--on a sailing vessel, on a steamship, on railroad cars, by stage coach, horseback, or on foot, as seems to him good; and he may adopt the means that shall seem best to him for discipling and instructing the nations (unless elsewhere forbidden) because the words are broad enough to cover them all.

The third word of command in this Commission is "baptize." Is this also a

22 Baptism.

word of general import? or is it one of specific mode?

THIS IS THE QUESTION BEFORE US; and it is one to be settled, not by prejudice, but by sound judgment. That the other three words are of general signification weighs nothing, of course, to prove that this is. I have only taken these others as illustrations to bring the issue clearly before us. Whether this third word of command is one of general import or of specific mode is to be settled by careful, candid, and thorough examination. I used to think that it was the latter. After most laborious research, in spite of the beliefs of twenty-five years to combat, I am sure that it is not.

It neither means to immerse nor to sprinkle nor to pour upon. It conveys in its ritual use the general idea OF CEREMONIAL PURIFICATION BY WATER-- including all these methods, but limited to none

Baptism. 23

of them. No one English word expresses it; and it was, therefore, wise and necessary to transfer the word from the Greek to the English. You have told me that you were "not a Greek scholar, knowing little more than the Greek alphabet ;" and have requested that in these letters I should spell out in English characters the Greek words which it might be necessary or convenient to introduce. This I shall be happy to do. I begin with the word baptizein--to baptize. You notice that our English spelling of the infinitive simply drops the last two letters of the Greek. Were you to look for the word in a Greek lexicon you would find it given baptizo--I baptize. Maybe, before my next letter, you may interest yourself in looking it up.

LETTER III.

I SEE that you have adopted my suggestion, and so in your last letter you say: "I find that the word baptizo is defined as meaning in classic Greek, 'Dip, plunge, immerse,' etc. If so, how can you be justified in your interpretation of what it means in the New Testament?"

I proceed at once to answer. Even admitting that the Greek lexicon which you have consulted defines correctly the classic usage of baptizo (that is a question which I will consider hereafter), this does not by any means settle the other question as to its usage in the New Testament. Very many words employed in the Greek Testament are used in a sense very much modified from that which they bear

Baptism. 25

in classic Greek. This you will readily see must be so from the necessities of the case. Words are the signs of ideas: and when you wish to convey to anyone a new idea, for which his own language has no word exactly fitted, you are obliged to invent an entirely new word, or to use such words as his language affords, in a modified sense. Hence it will be found that there is not a distinctively Christian conception in the New Testament which does not need to give expression to itself through some word of classic Greek more or less changed from its classic meaning. Theos (God), Christos (Christ), metanoia (repentance), agape (love), elpis (hope), pistis (faith), hamartia (sin), sarx (flesh), ouranos (heaven) —how different are the ideas conveyed by these words to the Christian reader of the New Testament from any which they ever conveyed to the readers of Homer, Xenophon, or Thucydides!

26 Baptism.

Deipnon (supper) expressed to the mind of Plato a very different thought from that which Paul had when he spoke of the Lord's Supper. To the Greek this word was the name for "the full meal of the day," whenever taken. Who knows but that the Corinthians made this mistake of assuming that the word. was used in its classic sense, and so fell to eating and drinking, --almost to surfeiting, --until Paul found it necessary to rebuke them, and to explain to them the nature of the ordinance? (See I Cor. II: 20—30.)

The classic meaning of no word is an absolute guide to its signification in the New Testament. Whenever any distinctively Christian or ecclesiastic idea is to be expressed, the Greek word will be found used in a modified sense.

The experience of all modern missionaries to heathen lands illustrates the same law. Before they can preach to the people

Baptism. 27

in their native tongue they find it necessary to explain to them that the words employed are used in a different sense from that to which they have been accustomed. So, also, in translating the Scriptures. As one of the ablest of our American missionaries said to me a few years ago: "The language of all these nations needs to be converted as much as the people."

If, then, we admit, for the sake of argument, that baptizo in the Greek always means immerse, it still remains an open question whether its religious sense is the same or not.

Suppose it were necessary to employ some word to express the idea of "ceremonious religious cleansing in the use of water," and no word was found in classic Greek exactly expressing that idea, what is to be done? Just what was done in numberless other cases: SOME WORD MUST BE CONVERTED TO THAT USE.

28 Baptism.

Would it not be entirely in harmony with well-known laws of language to seize upon baptizo for that purpose?

Here is a word meaning to IMMERSE, to ENVELOP. One of the methods of cleaning is by immersing in pure water. This word is therefore laid hold upon to express THE GENERAL IDEA OF CEREMONIAL CLEANSING WITH WATER. Certainly in this there would be no violence done to the well-known laws of human speech. For exactly that sort of thing was done, long before the times of Christ, in the case of another Greek verb closely related to bapizo. I refer to BAPTO. This word originally meant to dip, or immerse, somewhat the same as bqptizo, as the dictionaries represent it. But as dipping or immersion was one method of coloring, or dyeing it came to be used to mean color, or dye, without any reference to mode whatever.

Baptism. 29

I know this point has been disputed by Alexander Campbell and some other zealous immersionists. But the facts are so palpable as to compel the ablest of all the Baptist writers--Dr. Alexander Carson--to yield it entirely; and so he says: "Although this meaning arose from dyeing by dipping, yet the word has come by appropriation to denote dyeing without reference to mode. . . . Nothing in the history of words is more common than to enlarge or diminish their signification. In this way bapto, from signifying mere mode, came to be applied to a certain operation, usually performed in that mode. From signifying to dip, it came to signify to dye by dipping, and afterwards to denote dyeing in any manner. A like process might be shown in the history of a thousand other words." 1

1 Carson on Baptism: edition of American Baptist Publication Society, p. 44.

30 Baptism.

The examples in which this meaning occurs are such as fully to justify the con-clusion to which Dr. Carson comes.

Thus Hippocrates, speaking of a coloring fluid, says: "When it drops upon the garments, they are dyed."

So Nearchus relates that the Indians dye their beards; and AElian speaks of an old coxcomb who attempted to conceal his age by dyeing his hair.

AEschylus speaks of a garment dyed by the sword of AEgisthus. .

Homer, in the battle of the frogs and mice, relates that Crombophagus--so Cowper names this warrior-- "fell and breathed no more, and the lake was dyed with blood."

Alexander Campbell, Dr. Gale, of England, and other Baptist writers even here insist that the lake was "dipped by hyperbole." "The literal sense is," says Dr. Gale, "the lake was dipped in blood." To which Dr. Carson replies: "Never

Baptism. 31

was such a figure. . . . What a monstrous paradox in rhetoric is the figure of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a mouse! . . . The lake is said to be dyed, not dipped nor poured nor sprinkled. There is in the word no reference to mode.¹

l. lbid. p. 43.

What now would be more natural than that baptizo, meaning originally to immerse, should come to be used in a secondary sense to convey the idea of cleansing, or purifying without reference to mode?

Of course this argument does not prove that as a matter of fact it did undergo any transition of that sort. That proof is to be submitted hereafter. For the present I am only endeavoring to show that such a change would do no violence to the laws of language. In the words of Dr. Carson, already quoted: "A like process might be shown in the history of a thousand other words."

LETTER IV.

I TRUST I have made it plain in my last letter that such a modification of meaning as I claim in case of baptizo would not have been unnatural or improbable, but altogether in harmony with the well-known laws of human speech.

Before coming to the positive proof, that just such a change did actually occur, I wish to show you beyond all question that the exigencies of every passage of Scripture in which baptism is commanded absolutely require some modification of the classical meaning, as it is held to be by all authorities. This can be made entirely clear from the Baptist translation itself. Take the Commission as it reads in the version published by the Baptist

Baptism. 33

Union: "Go, therefore, and disciple all the nations, immersing them in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit."

Or take the answer which Peter is represented to have made on the day of Pentecost to those inquiring what they should do to be saved : "Repent, and be each of you immersed."

Suppose the inquirer had said: "Immerse? into what?"

Does the classic baptizo answer this question? Not at all! Whether the immersion is to be in salt water or fresh, in running water or still, in clean water, or oil, or vinegar, or into filth, there is nothing in the English word immerse, and there is nothing in the classic baptizo, to decide or even to suggest. What the effect of the immersion is to be, whether to render clean or unclean, there is absolutely nothing in the classic baptizo to indicate.

34 Baptism.

I have before me a volume published by the American Bible Union (Baptist) for the purpose of vindicating their translation of baptizo by "immerse"; a volume in which they profess to give all the passages in Greek literature in which the word occurs; and so far as I know it is complete and exact.

Now what do I find in the examination of these passages, numbering in all a little more than one hundred and fifty? I find that twenty times it was used of a ship that was going to the bottom of the sea; eighteen times of one sinking or drowned as the result of his immersion ; nineteen times of dipping into oil; six times of plunging something, as a sword, into the human body; of land overflowed by water twice; of the difficulty of sinking things into very salt water, four times; of dipping into milk, vinegar, wine, honey, wax, fire, ointment, etc., twenty times.

Baptism. 35

Besides these, about seventy examples are given of its figurative use of being sunken, or overwhelmed in cares, debts, ignorance, sleep, passion, drunkenness, taxes, crimes, vices, sorrows, afflictions, calamities, punishments, difficulties, etc.; every time in a bad sense.

Now, as these are all the examples of the word baptizo which these learned gentlemen of the Baptist Union have been able to find in all the classic Greek literature which has come down to our day, they may reasonably be presumed to represent pretty fairly the general usage of the classic Greek. At all events, they are the sole basis upon which the dictionaries of the Greek language have been made.

Do any of these illustrate the usage of the word as found in the Greek Testament, in connection with the ordinance of baptism? Do they give any hint of the spiritual significance of the Christian rite?

36 Baptism.

Do they suggest clearly any answer to the question, "Into what must this immersion which the Baptist translation commands take place?"

Nothing is said in the Great Commission about water -- nothing, according to their translation, is implied. The classic usage of baptizo does not imply water. As Dr. Carson himself is clear-headed enough to see, and candid enough to say: " The idea of water is not in the word at all." YET THE WORD ITSELF IS ALL THAT IS FOUND IN THE GREAT COMMISSION! The word itself is all that is found in Peter's answer on the day of Pentecost.

Every minister of Christ is commanded (according to this Baptist translation) to "immerse" disciples. And for one I am entirely willing to admit that we probably have no one word that better translates the classic baptizo than the word immerse. Not that the act of immersion is expressed

Baptism. 37

by it, so much as the condition of being surrounded by anything, whether liquid or solid. But not having any one word to express its classic meaning any better than immerse, with this general explanation, I am willing to admit that the Baptist translation is a good translation of the classic word baptizo. But what I maintain is that the classic baptizo does not at all meet the demands of the Christian ordinance; nor does the translation of the Baptist Union; for the very reason which Dr. Carson has acknowledged, that there is no water at all in the word itself. The thing into which the immersion is to take place must, in classic usage, be expressed; for the word does not imply it.

I want to make this so plain that there can be no possible questioning it. Suppose a Grecian gentleman in the days of Plato, for example, had called one of his servants, and telling him that he would

38 Baptism. .

find a piece of cloth in a certain place, had simply bidden him immerse it (using the word baptizo in its proper mood, tense, number, and person), would the servant have known anything about what he was to do with it?

Had that servant been familiar with every passage in Greek literature now known to us, he would have been in utter ignorance of the thing required; and he would have waited for the finishing of his master's sentence; and unless the master had intended to mock the servant, he would have proceeded to finish the sentence without delay. For without something further the servant could not have known whether the cloth was to be immersed in fresh water or salt; in warm water or cold; in honey or oil; in vinegar or wine; in ointment or milk. "There is no water in the word at all" is a true saying when the remark is confined to the classic usage.

Baptism. 39

Pressed by this logic, which years ago I found clinging to me, I said to myself: "Very well; the disciple must be immersed in something; the command does not say what. Water is ordinarily the most convenient thing; and as nothing is said about it, I am at liberty to choose. But these disciples must be buried in something; and if I were in a desert with plenty of sand and little water I would bury them in the sand, covering the face last of all, and uncovering it again as promptly as possible; so that they should always be able to understand that passage -- "buried with him by baptism"; and that other that speaks about being "planted together in the likeness of his death." And I found various other Baptist ministers who occupied the same ground.

I cannot now see the fallacy of my argument, assuming that the classic bap-

40 Baptism.

tizo must determine for me the meaning of the command. Or, if we take the significance of the ordinance, as almost all Baptist writers insist upon giving it to us, -- Campbell, Carson, Ripley, Hinton, and others, -- that the ordinance was intended to represent Christ's burial and resurrection, and to be a symbolic pledge of our own resurrection after death, then the person must go under and come out again. And something else besides water might answer for that.

I could not, however, stand very firmly in this conclusion when I had reached it; for I found too many allusions to baptism -- such as, "having your bodies washed with pure water" -- to rest in the result to which I had come, that there was no water necessary to Christian baptism. There is none in the classic baptizo -- that is plain.

If it be said that we find the water

Baptism. 41

not in the word, but in the history and incidental allusions, I reply that this would answer, if the water were merely an unimportant incident. But here is a prominent command, with the most important part of it omitted from the law itself, and left merely to inference. I know of no other case in which such a thing has been done. If it is done here, it is an anomaly.

We have no instance in the Bible in which the word immerse is used. So I cannot illustrate by that particular term. But the word "dip" we have; and this is preferred by some of the Baptist writers as the equivalent term of baptizo; and we can see by reference to the cases in which it is used how entirely essential it is to make mention of that into which the dipping is to take place.

For example, we are told in Genesis 37:31 that Joseph's brethren dipped his

42 Baptism.

coat in the blood of a kid. Elsewhere we are informed that Aaron dipped his finger in the blood of the calf, and put it upon the horns of the altar. Of Asher it is said, "Let him dip his foot in oil." The feet of the priests were dipped in the brim of the water. Jonathan put forth the end of the rod that was in his hand and dipped it in a honeycomb. Of about twenty instances in the Bible in which the word "dip" is used, only three of them refer to dipping into water; and all the passages would be entirely blind and without meaning were no mention made of the substance into which the dipping or immersion took place.

The same thing would be found true in the various passages in which the word "sprinkle" is found. Sometimes it is the sprinkling of water, sometimes blood, sometimes ashes, sometimes dust.

Nearly all the passages containing

Baptism. 43

either of these words are simple narrative: and every one of them would be obscure if the verb stood alone. And does not a positive command need to be made as plain as an historic narrative? Do we expect a material point -- the material point -- to be omitted?

The water in baptism is either essential or it is not. If it is not, the classic baptizo will answer. If it is, baptizo in its classic sense utterly fails to meet the exigencies of the Christian ordinance. No water is mentioned in the Great Commission, and baptizo, in its usage in the one hundred and fifty passages of classic literature that have come down to us, is found to imply none. It is used of all sorts of substances, liquid and solid alike.

But now, assuming that the word expresses in itself as used in the Scriptures, the idea of "ceremonial cleansing, or ritual purification, by water," all is

44 Baptism.

plain. On this supposition there is water rough in the command. The classic baptizo does not give us a drop. That means immerse, dip, or plunge, with no reference whatever to the material, or to any cleansing result that may be produced.

I see no escape from this argument. Were there no other evidence of a variation from classic usage, the absolute exigencies of those passages commanding baptism would be sufficient to prove it. NO WORD OF SPECIFIC MODE MERELY can possibly fulfill the demand of these passages. If we try "Repent, and be sprinkled," the incompleteness and the obscurity resulting are just the same as from the translation of the Baptist Union " Repent, and be immersed" Sprinkled with what? would remain an unanswered question.

The word baptizo must be understood

Baptism. 45

to express some general idea of effect, and not merely of mode. Upon the supposition that it was used in a sacred sense to denote a ceremony of religious cleansing and consecration, everything is plain.

But is there any proof that it was so used and understood by those to whom the New Testament was given? To that point I shall come in my next letter.

LETTER V.

IN your letter in reply to my last you say: "If, as you state, and as Dr. Carson affirms, and as you seem satisfactorily to prove, the classic baptizo carries in its own intrinsic meaning no water, how do you account for such a definition of the word as my Greek lexicon gives? It is thus defined: 'BAPTIZO: to dip, plunge, or immerse in water.'"

I answer that such a definition is a mere matter of carelessness on the part of the lexicographer. I have in my library the lexicon from which you quote: and I have also half a dozen others which define the word more exactly. I do not doubt that the lexicographer to whom you refer would, upon cross-examination, immediately correct himself.

. Baptism. 47

An exact definition may always be substituted for the word itself; but this definition will bear no such test. Were you a teacher of Greek, as you are of English, and were a boy to translate a sentence from his Greek reader thus: "The ship, being immersed in water in the sea, soon sank to the bottom," you would say to him, "In the sea? Where do you get that?" "From the text, en thalasso." "Very well. 'Being immersed in water' where do you get that?" "From baptizomenos: the dictionary tells me that baptizo means immerse in water." "But is there not water enough 'in the sea' for immersing a ship? Why do you compel bzptizomenos to furnish you any more? Is it not very bad rhetoric to say 'being immersed in water in the sea'?" "Yes; but that is not my fault; I translate according to the dictionary!"

Were you as competent a teacher of

48 Baptism.

Greek as you are of English, you would say to the student : "Dictionaries sometimes make mistakes; the men who make them are sometimes careless. The dictionary should have defined baptizo something like this: 'To dip, plunge, or immerse; for example, in water, oil, vinegar, or something else, as the case may be.' Neither the water, oil, nor vinegar is any part of the definition of the verb: the water no more than the oil or the vinegar."

The student, possibly, would not be entirely satisfied with your teaching; for a boy in the Greek reader is very apt to be suspicious of a teacher who disputes the dictionary. So you wait, until three days after there is another sentence, which he translates thus: "The man dipped the spoon in the melted wax;" and you say to him: "Why do you not translate, 'He dipped the spoon in water

Baptism. 49

in the melted wax' ?" "Because that would be absurd." "True; but does not the dictionary say that baptizo means to dip in water? You did not get any water into your translation—nothing but melted wax!" The student by this time discovers that the dictionary is at fault. And you go on to say to him: "You will find that whenever in classic Greek you meet baptizo in any of its voices, moods, or tenses; in any of its forms of number or person, the word itself carries neither water nor oil nor vinegar: but you will find that the thing into which the dipping, plunging, or immersion takes place is distinctly expressed, or so implied in the context, that it is equivalent to expressing it. Whether it be the sea or a lake; ointment or oil; milk or molasses, —it will be found to be stated. The verb itself implies nothing whatever as to that."

Perhaps you will take occasion to say to

50 Baptism.

the young student also another thing, and that is that dictionaries are not the highest authority as to the meaning of words: there is always an appeal to actual usage as the court of final resort.

Some dictionary makers are very exact in definitions. As a teacher of English you have found Webster to be one of the very best in this regard. And if you will turn now to this definition of the word "immerse," you will notice the contrast between his accuracy and the loose inexactness of your Greek dictionary in defining baptizo. Here is his definition of IMMERSE: "To plunge into anything that surrounds or covers, especially into a fluid; to dip; to sink; to bury; to over-whelm." No mention of water particularly as a part of the definition: "Anything that surrounds, or covers." One sinking in a quagmire; or buried in melted lava, or plunged into filth, or

. Baptism. 51

dipped in water, — all alike are immersed. And this is the word, you will remember, which is chosen by the Baptist Union to express the ordinance of baptism. "Repent and be immersed, every one of you." Now there is no more water in "immerse" than in the classic baptizo: and if the use of pure water is implied in Christian baptism, then this translation fails to give it to us ; but if the word baptizo in connection with the Christian ordinance has the signification of "ceremonial cleansing in the use of water," then all is plain and easy.

What is the matter of historic fact ? Had this word at the time of Christ taken on any such secondary meaning; and is it used in the New Testament in any such sense?

My first appeal is to the Septuagint:

and I think it can be shown most conclusively that the word baptizo was under-

52 Baptism.

stood by the Jews at the time of Christ, and had been so understood for a long time before, to convey the idea of ceremonial cleansing in the use of water, whether it was applied by sprinkling, pouring, or immersion.

You will not need to be reminded that the Greek translation of the old Testament Scriptures known as the Septuagint was made from one hundred and thirty to three hundred years before Christ: that the Apocryphal books, generally bound up with the rest in the Septuagint, are of unquestioned antiquity, at least as old as the dates above given; that although these books may not be regarded as canonical, yet some of them have been highly esteemed; and whether so or not, they illustrate the usage of words among the Jews none the less.

The word baptizo is found three times in the Septuagint in its literal sense;

Baptism. 53

once figuratively. The first case of its occurrence is in 2 Kings 5 : 14 and is familiar. Here the word is used of Naaman's cleansing himself in the Jordan for the cure of his leprosy.

In the Hebrew the word is tawbal, which ordinarily means to "dip," or "immerse," without question. Gesenius, Buxtorph, and Fuerstio give no other definition. Others give also "cleanse" or "wash."

But even if we admit that it never means anything but dip, plunge, or immerse, it matters not, because it is not at all with the Hebrew word that we have to do. And this must be distinctly borne in mind. Baptist writers have often seemed to overlook that fact and assume that because the Septuagint uses the word baptizo it must be, of course, that it is the exact equivalent of the Hebrew word tawbal. This is a mistaken assumption,

54 Baptism.

as we shall see. We have only to do with the Greek word which the Seventy have employed in translating it. This word, as you know, is baptizo.

What these translators meant to express by it may be better understood by observing carefully all the various cases in which tawbat is found in the Hebrew, and the different ways in which they have rendered it. It is used sixteen times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Fourteen times it is translated into the Greek by bapto, once by moluno, once by baptizo.

Was this a mere matter of accident? If not, why did they make such a difference?

The answer to this question may throw light on the whole subject. Already this word baptizo had come to be used in a peculiar sense -- a religious sense — to signify water cleansing, and not merely to express the mode of it by dipping or

Baptism. 55

immersion. In the case of Naaman, the main thing was the cleansing —- not merely the cure of the leprosy, but the ceremonial cleansing; and as it was wrought by miracle, by the command of a prophet of the Lord, the Seventy thought it more fitting to use baptizo than bapto. It was not simply the healing of a repulsive disease, it was cleansing from a disease which symbolized sin — which shut him who had it from the congregation of religious worshipers. It was, in a certain sense, and a very important sense, expressive of ritual purification.

When Joseph's brethren dipped his coat in the blood of the kid, some other word must be used. The Seventy recoiled from employing baptizo.

Dipping the bread in vinegar, dipping a rod in the honeycomb, dipping the feet in water or oil, or in the blood of one's enemies, — even Aaron's dipping his finger

56 Baptism.

in the blood of the calf, — in all these cases bapto is employed; for although Aaron's dipping his finger in the blood was part of a religious service, yet there was no religious cleansing of his finger or of his person at all suggested.

But when Naaman, in obedience to the word of the prophet, and for his cleansing from a disease which made him who had it unfit for religious service, dipped himself in the Jordan, baptizo might be used. And then it was used, not to express the dipping, but the resultant cleansing. This is made obvious by the only other case in which they translated the Hebrew word tawbal by any other word than bapto. That instance is found in Genesis 37:31:

"And they took Joseph's coat, and killed a kid of the goats, and dipped the coat in the blood." Here the Seventy have translated by moluno, which means, not "to dip," but "to defile."

Baptism. 57

Our translators — translating directly from the Hebrew — have given us two words which accurately represent tawbal: — "dip" and "plunge." The Seventy have given us three, two of which represent their own ideas of the effects in the two cases; and if any one should be called to the work of translating the Septuagint into English, he would never for a moment dream of translating moluno by anything else than "defile." That the Hebrew original meant "dip" or "plunge" would make no difference. It would constitute no argument to prove that moluno was understood by the Seventy to mean "plunge." So the use of baptizo in the other example is no proof that they understood that word to mean "dip" or "immerse." In the fourteen instances where they wish to say "dip," without implying either cleansing or pollution, they translate by bapto. In one case

58 Baptism.

implying defilement they used a word which means "defile"; in the one implying cleansing, they used a word which they understood to mean "cleanse." We cannot believe that they translated the same. Hebrew word fourteen times by bapto and once by baptizo, by mere chance and without a reason. When the dipping expressed by tawbal implied defilement, they used moluno to express defilement. In doing so it may be said that they mistook their proper office as translators. I think they did; but that fact does not weaken the force of my argument; it gives strength to it. They were men of learning in the Greek. They knew that tawbat did not mean "defile," but simply as we have it in our translation. But the effect of dipping Joseph's coat into blood was defilement. Wishing to give expression to that effect they used moluno.

Baptism. 59

One other instance they found in which the dipping expressed by tawbal resulted in cleansing: they knew that tawbal did not mean to cleanse; but wishing to give expression to that effect, they employed, not bapto, which was the proper word for translating tawbal— but baptizo, which meant "cleanse," just as moluno meant defile.

They knew that baptizo was understood by the Jews to mean "cleanse," and for that reason, and for no other, they used it in this one solitary case.

This understanding of the matter makes everything plain and intelligible. They did not use bapto fourteen times, and then use baptizo once, because it meant the same thing as bapto (as Baptist writers generally maintain) but because it did NOT mean the same thing. Had they employed the two words bapto and baptizo indiscriminately — sometimes one and sometimes the other, by mere chance—

60 Baptism.

for translating the Hebrew tawbal, then there would be reason in the Baptist argument. But they did not use the two words indiscriminately. They used bapto everywhere to express simply dipping or immersion. The solitary instance in which the dipping resulted in ceremonial cleansing was that of Naaman: and in

that case, and that only, they used baptizo to express the cleansing. No other explanation of their use of it explains anything, but simply darkens counsel by words without knowledge.

Were this the only instance of the use of baptizo, it would be wellnigh impossible to avoid the sure conviction that at the time of this translation (say, about two hundred years before Christ) baptizo was as well understood to express the idea of ritual purification by water, as moluno was understood to express the idea of defilement.

Baptism. 61

But this is not the only case nor by any means the strongest to prove that baptizo was understood in this sense. Other examples will be given in my next letter.

LETTER VI.

IN reply to my fifth letter you say: "I have still two difficulties in reference to your explanation of the passage referring to Naaman : — (I) To translate baptizo by the word 'cleanse' makes the Septuagint to say that Naaman 'cleansed himself seven times' in the Jordan. Now I can understand how dipping himself seven times, at the command of the prophet, should result in his being cleansed , but was he cleansed seven times? (2) Admitting that the word means 'cleanse,' the cleansing was by dipping, was it not? If so, how that could help me in reaching the conclusion that ritual purification might be attained by sprinkling or pouring, I cannot see."

Baptism. 63

Your statement of these difficulties is both clear and concise. I shall try to meet them fully.

First, as to the sevenfold cleansing, let me say three things:—

(I) There is no greater difficulty in conceiving of cleansing a thing seven times than of washing it seven times; and just that was what Naaman was ordered to do by the prophet. Washing is not simply wetting. To wash a garment is to make it clean. Were I to quote the various passages in which the same word (rawchats) that is here translated "wash" is found, it would be evident that it is substantially a synonym of "cleanse." Many of our Baptist brethren have the impression that Naaman was commanded by the prophet to DIP himself seven times in the Jordan. This is a mistake; he was directed to wash seven times: in other words, to cleanse himself seven times.

64 Baptism.

(2) "Seven" being a common Hebrew symbol of completeness, to cleanse a thing seven times is, in Hebrew phraseology, to thoroughly cleanse it.

(3) The usage of other passages abundantly justifies the Seventy in supposing that a Jew might, without violating any law of Hebrew usage, speak of Naaman cleansing himself seven times: as, for example, Psalm 12 : 6: "The words of the Lord are pure words. . . . purified seven times."

These remarks, I think, will fully meet your first difficulty.

As to your second question I may say that thus far I have only mentioned one of the instances in which the word baptizo is used in the Septuagint. The others I am to give in their regular order. In the case of Naaman I have no doubt that his mode of cleansing was by dipping himself in the Jordan, for the use of the

Baptism. 65

Hebrew word tawbal determines this. But this does not prove at all that the Greek word used by the Seventy meant "dip"; this I have endeavored to show was not the case. That word meant simply to express the general fact that he cleansed himself as he had been told to do. He was not commanded to dip himself, as we have seen ; but he was not forbidden to do so, and he chose his own mode of performing the water cleansing which had been required of him as the condition of his recovery.

The very next instance to which I call your attention is one in which the cleansing was in some other manner than by dipping. It is found in the book of Judith, and shows conclusively that the word baptizo was used to express the general idea of ritual purification, and that, too, in a case where immersion is excluded with wellnigh absolute certainty.

66 Baptism.

Allow me briefly to recapitulate the circumstances as they are given in this book—which is properly placed in the Apocrypha, but which was written, as generally understood, about two hundred years before Christ; and whether the book is historical or fictitious makes no difference in illustrating the use of the word baptizo.

As the story runs, there was a war between the Assyrians and the Medes. Holofernes was the commander-in-chief of the Assyrian army, and led them forth to a war of conquest determined to compel all to submit to Nebuchadnezzar, the Assyrian king, and even to render him divine worship. In his progress he approached the land of Israel. The Jews prepared to resist him. They were in Bethulia and were rapidly coming into great distress.

Judith, a Jewish widow, planned de-

Baptism. 67

liverance for her country by a piece of superb strategy. Making herself as attractive as possible by reason of her personal beauty and her splendid attire, she went with her maid to the camp of Holofernes, pretending to take refuge there against the certain destruction which was speedily to overtake her people. In reality she had gone to the camp of the Assyrians for the purpose of getting Holofernes intoxicated and of taking his life, and so raising the siege and delivering her country.

So well did she play her part that the king was deceived by "her beauty of face and wisdom of words," and a tent was assigned to her and her maid. She remained in the camp three days, and having obtained permission to go out for prayer she went forth by night into the valley of Bethulia and purified herself (ebaptizeto) in the camp at the fountain of

68 Baptism.

water. And entering in pure (kathara) she remained in the tent till one brought her food in the evening. (Judith 12 : 6, 7, 9.)

This was evidently in form a religious purification. It was in the camp. It was under the eye of the guard. It was at a "fountain" (pege [both "e" accented]) -- "a spring" -- not a lake. She purified herself at the fountain, not in it. The Greek proposition is [?]. It was, I repeat, within the camp. It was not a natural place for immersion. No lady would have been at all likely to immerse herself in such a place, even had there been facilities for it, which is not at all probable (though on Baptist writer, in his zeal for his theory, suggests that she might have found a horse-trough large enough for the purpose).

"But why should she leave her tent for a purification other than immersion ; and why at night?" To this objection several answers may be made.

Baptism. 69

First, it may be said that as a Jewess, accustomed to the use of running water in all ritual cleansing, she would naturally choose water which had not gone through any uncircumcised hands, and which had not in any ceremonial way become unclean. This she could find only at the fountain itself.

Secondly, it may be said that she had her own special reasons for this walk to the fountain at night. She had laid a deep plot. Before she got through with it she intended to get into her possession the head of the Assyrian general and to carry it back with her to the besieged city. So she went forth night after night, and returned again, until all suspicion had been allayed and the opportune moment had come. It was not till the fourth night that she could accomplish her mission and return with the head of Holofernes.

70 Baptism.

Reasons enough may be suggested for her going to the fountain, and going at night, without adopting the utterly improbable theory that it was for the purpose of immersion a theory supported only by the assumption that the word baptizo means immerse and nothing else. Understanding it to express the general idea of ceremonial purification by water, all is easy.

It might be added that as the professed purpose of her going to the fountain was for religious purification, and as the purification of the Jews was almost always by sprinkling, it is not at all probable that she would immerse herself, even could she have done so with perfect facility. But this would be to anticipate what will be said more fully hereafter.

The only remaining instance in which baptizo is found in the Septuagint (except once in a figurative sense) occurs

Baptism. 71

in "Ecclesiasticus, or Son of Sirach," 34: 25, and when properly studied is itself enough to settle the whole controversy. Your special attention is invited to this case, for if I am correct in my interpretation it IS ABSOLUTELY CONCLUSIVE.

The passage is this: "He that is purified (baptizomenos) from a dead body, and touches it again, what does his cleansing profit him ?"

We may safely assume that the author of this book understood the process of ceremonial cleansing to which he refers, and that he had in mind the process required by the law of Moses. That law is laid down in the nineteenth chapter of Numbers. And the only and entire process of cleansing required was that the ashes of the burnt heifer should be put into a vessel, running water should be put thereto, and this water should be SPRINKLED upon him with a bunch of

72 Baptism.

hyssop in the hands of a clean person. NOTHING MORE WHATEVER.1

1 Whosoever in the open field toucheth one that is slain with a sword, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. And for the unclean they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification of sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel: and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon him that touched the bone, or the slain, or the dead, or the grave: and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day. Num. 19 : 16-19.

And so it is said (Num. 19: 13) that he who neglects to be thus purified from the touch of a dead body shall be cut off from his people; "because the water of separation WAS NOT SPRINKLED UPON HIM, he shall be unclean." 2

2 Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man that is dead, and purifieth not himself, defileth the tabernacle of the Lord; and that soul shall be cut off from Israel: because the water of separation was not sprinkled upon him, he shall be unclean. Num. 19: 13.

So again in the 20th verse: "The man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord; the water of separation HATH

Baptism. 73

NOT BEEN SPRINKLED UPON HIM: he is unclean."

So, also, it is that the writer to the Hebrews says, in allusion to this law: "For if the ashes of a heifer, SPRINKLING THE UNCLEAN, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh, how much more shall the blood of Christ purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9: 13,14.)

In like manner he speaks of having "our hearts sprinkled from an evil conscience." (Heb. 10 : 22.)

THE ENTIRE PROCESS OF CLEANSING FROM A DEAD BODY, TO WHICH THE SON OF SIRACH REFERS, WAS BY SPRINKLING, AND YET HE CALLS IT BAPTISM.

Is it asked, how it comes that this argument has not long ago settled the question in every candid mind? I answer that it is because, somehow or other, writers on both sides have generally stumbled upon

74 Baptism. .

the grammar of the 19th verse of this chapter. So true is it that philology and theology are own brothers. By some strange oversight the fact that the subject of both parts of the verse are one and the same has not been noticed.

This 19th verse reads thus : — "And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day; and on the seventh day he (that is, the clean person who has now become somewhat unclean from contact with the unclean) shall purify HIMSELF, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at evening." The pronoun "he" has been improperly referred to the unclean who had touched the dead body, whereas it refers to the

person originally clean who had used the hyssop and the water of separation.

Notice particularly the law upon the whole subject. That law required that a

Baptism. 75

clean person should take hyssop and dip it in the water and sprinkle it upon him that had touched a dead person. And then it also required that after thus sprinkling it upon the seventh day (which was for the last time) he should purify himself by washing his clothes and bathing. And by a wrong grammatical construction this washing and bathing have been referred to him who had touched the dead body. They were not at all a part of his cleansing. Nor was the sprinkling required of him who had used the hyssop. It is only necessary to read the verse naturally, without assuming any change of subject in passing from the first to the second clause, and everything is plain. The originally clean person, who had used the hyssop upon the unclean, was regarded as so far infected that he was required to become disinfected by washing his clothes and bathing himself in

76 Baptism.

water; and then he should be clean at evening.

There is nothing whatever to indicate that the object of the first part of the sentence becomes the subject of the second part. NOTHING WHATEVER. On the contrary the natural construction of the Hebrew, and equally so of the Greek in the Septuagint, as well as the English of our own versions,— both old and new,— all are in favor of the interpretation which I have given.

Besides, the whole context is confirmatory of it. Please to open to the passage and see how entirely plain it is. The 19th verse reads thus : —

"And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third clay, and on the seventh day: and on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at evening." Thus reads

Baptism. 77

the 19th verse. All this is required of THE CLEAN PERSON : — no intimation of any change of subject. But now notice how the next verse begins : —

"BUT THE MAN THAT SHALL BE UNCLEAN, and shall not purify himself, that soul shall be cut off from among the congregation," etc.

To suppose that the second clause of the 19th verse refers to the unclean person is wellnigh absurd, when it is so evident that there is no reference to him until the beginning of the next verse, where he is so formally introduced.

Notice, again, that in this same chapter there are several other enactments bearing upon precisely the same class of cases. For example, the priest who had officiated in connection with the slaying of the red heifer, and who had thus become infected, must pass through a similar process of disinfection. For this it is thus provided:

78 Baptism.

"Then the priest shall wash his clothes, and he shall bathe his flesh in water, and afterward he shall come into the camp, and the priest shall be unclean until the evening." (verse 7.)

Two other similar enactments follow: --

"And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until evening." (verse 8.)

"And he that gathereth the ashes of the heifer shall wash his clothes, and be unclean until evening." (verse 10.)

Notice, again, that after enacting in the 19th verse that the clean person who has become somewhat contaminated by sprinkling the water of separation shall go through with the process of washing his clothes and bathing, it follows in the 21st verse: "And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinkleth the water of separation shall wash his

baptism. 79

clothes." This form of making a statute perpetual seems never to be used except when the statute has been previously announce.1 [ 1 See Ex. 12: 14, 17; 29: 9; 31: 16; Lev. 3: 17; 24: 3; Num. 18: 8, 19, 19: 10 ] But unless we understand it to be announced in the latter half of the 19th verse, it is not found at all.

Every line of argument seems to compel the conclusion that I have given the only reasonable construction to the verse under consideration.

To none of all those mentioned in the 7th, 8th, and 9th verses was the water of separation applied. They who had anything to do with the purification of the unclean, even the one that gathered up the ashes, must all of them be clean in the outset. Their infection could be removed by bathing. But the unclean person must be cleansed BY THE SPRINKLING OF THAT WHICH SYMBOLIZED AND REPRESENTED THE

80 Baptism.

BLOOD OF CHRIST — AND BY THAT ALONE. The law recoiled from requiring more.

I do not see how the case could be made any stronger. Either, the Son of Sirach was utterly ignorant of what constituted the cleansing from a dead body, to which he refers (and no one has ever suggested any question as to his competency), or he understood baptizo to be the right word to express a ceremonial cleansing which was performed SOLELY BY

SPRINKLING.

That he was not ignorant we may certainly assume. And you can readily consult Josephus to discover that he understood the thing in the same way: that THE WHOLE CEREMONY OF CLEANSING FROM A DEAD BODY WAS BY SPRINKLING ALONE. And yet that ceremony is called baptism by the writer of this book of the Son of Sirach, which dates back at least two hundred years B.C.

Baptism. 81

Lest you may not have Josephus' works at hand, I will copy the sentence referred to. It is very significant, for it shows that this learned man, who certainly knew the Greek language as the Jews understood it, and knew Jewish customs, also called this sprinkling "baptism." He says: "Baptizing by this ashes put into spring water, they SPRINKLED Off the third and seventh day." 1

1 Jewish Antiquities, book iv: chapter 4. .

The Greek word which he uses is baptizontes.

Putting the words of the Son of Sirach by the side of those of Josephus, who wrote about two hundred and fifty years later, it will be seen that the word baptizo had for many generations been employed by the Jews who were familiar with the Greek to express this idea of ceremonial cleansing by water. It had been so used for at least two or three centuries before

82 Baptism.

Christ. If Christ had used it in any other sense, it would have been necessary for him to state that fact; they would not naturally have expected him to use the word in any other sense, nor would they have understood him if he had so used it.

And it is also seen that the word was so used where the entire cleansing was BY SPRINKLING.

LETTER VII.

IN your reply to my sixth letter you say: " If I remember correctly, a certain Baptist writer translates the passage to which you refer, in the writings of the Son of Sirach, somewhat like this: 'If he who has dipped or immersed himself on account of a dead body, shall again touch the corpse, what does his immersion avail?' I would like to hear what you have to say to that."

First of all I have to say that this translation is just like the "certain Baptist writer" to whom you refer. He begins with the ASSUMPTION that because baptizo in the classic Greek means immerse, therefore it means immerse everywhere and always, and he makes everything bend to this theory.

84 Baptism.

Were I to declare that baptizo, in Jewish writings, always means to sprinkle, I could prove it with less violence to the laws of language than the "certain Baptist writer" is perpetually committing in asserting dogmatically that it always means immerse.

To take, for example, the case of Naaman at the Jordan, I could say that it was certain that the Syrian general sprinkled himself, for there could be no question that the person alluded to in Ecciesiasticus cleansed himself by sprinkling. True the Hebrew states that Naaman dipped himself; but that is a mere Figure of speech. He simply sprinkled himself; but he did it so copiously that he was just as wet as though he had dipped himself, and for that reason the Hebrew word tawbal is used, and I could justify myself by quoting Milton "The dew dips me all o'er." Dew comes

Baptism. 85

down in mist, sprinkling one; but it may be so thorough a wetting as to be called a dipping. That sort of talk would be as reasonable as much of that "certain Baptist writer's "; that is, it would be very unreasonable.

But now, when I say that this word baptizo, meaning originally, in classic Greek, to immerse, came by a very common process, "illustrated in the history of a thousand words," to mean, in Jewish usage, to cleanse or purify, without reference to mode, I make a statement which does violence to no law of language. Here in the history of Naaman the Septuagint says that he baptized himself— that is, cleansed himself ceremonially—in the Jordan. The Hebrew says that he dipped himself. There is no contradiction; the Septuagint states the general fact of the cleansing; the Hebrew states the particular mode in which the cleansing was

86 Baptism.

done on that occasion. All is reasonable; no violence is done to any principle of interpretation whatever. It is not necessary to assume, as some do, that the Seventy intended to say the thing exactly as the Hebrew has said it; they often varied from the Hebrew in a similar way. Were two men who have traveled together from New York to Chicago to report their journey, the one might say: "We went by rail ;" the other might say: "We went by a Pullman." The reader who should therefore insist that these two expressions were entirely synonymous, and that nobody could go by rail without taking a Pullman, would reason just as does the writer you quote on this subject.

There is such a thing as a fair treatment of language; there is such a thing as an unfair treatment of it. Dr.----- is sometimes very extravagant in his dogmatic statements; his exegesis is violent

Baptism. 87

and unreasonable and fails to carry conviction to those who stop to examine.

Let us look for a moment at his translation of the words of the Son of Sirach: "If one who has dipped or immersed himself on account of a dead body, shall afterwards touch again the dead body, what shall his dipping or immersion avail him?" Is this a fair translation ? It can be shown, I think, that it is very unfair. It is a translation that he would never have thought of, but for that unwarranted ASSUMPTION of his as to the meaning of baptizo. He says: "This word means dip, or immerse; it always means dip, or immerse; it can't mean anything else; everything must yield to this."

Did not the Son of Sirach know the law of Moses to which he alludes in reference to ceremonial cleansing after one had touched a dead body? No one can question that. What was that law? I quoted

88 Baptism.

it in my last letter; but let me refer to it again. It is very well worth our while to have it distinctly before us. This passage is the great battleground of this controversy. Turn to Numbers 19: 13, and you read: "Whosoever toucheth the dead body of any man, and purifieth not himself, . . . that soul shall be cut off from Israel; because the water of separation WAS NOT SPRINKLED UPON HIM, he shall be unclean." That is the whole of it. Not because he was not immersed — there was no immersion about it. The 17th and 18th verses describe the whole process: "They shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purification of sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel: and a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and SPRINKLE IT UPON HIM that touched the dead."

The 19th verse goes on to give directions that this should be done by a clean

Baptism. 89

person, and should be done twice — on the third day and on the seventh. The only "dipping" was of the hyssop into the water.

What right has Dr. ------ to translate: "If any person has dipped or immersed himself on account of a dead body"? Did not the Son of Sirach know the law? He had seen it executed many a time, no doubt. And he says no such thing as the doctor has put into his mouth. What he says is: " If the man who has been baptized (that is, cleansed ceremonially) from a dead body — if he shall touch the dead body again, what does his cleansing avail him?" He said this, knowing that the whole process of baptism spoken of was in the sprinkling of the water which had been put upon the ashes of the burnt heifer. If the water of separation had not been sprinkled upon him, he was unclean; if it had, he was cleansed.

90 Baptism.

The doctor's translation is an unpardonable violence to the laws of human speech. When a man's theory compels him to such violence, he should conclude that his theory is wrong. After my study of this passage, I never could again assert that baptizo always meant immerse — NEVER — for here was a plain case, plain as day, where it was used in reference to a ceremonial cleansing that consisted WHOLLY IN SPRINKLING, and YET IT WAS CALLED BAPTISM.

AND THIS WAS IN A WRITING THAT WAS TWO HUNDRED YEARS OLD WHEN CHRIST WAS BORN.

But this to which I have referred is not the only violence to language which the doctor's translation of this passage involves. The preposition apo means "from," not "on account of." To speak of being "cleansed from a dead body" makes good sense; to speak of being

Baptism. 91

"immersed from a dead body" does not. So the doctor must translate apo "on account of." This is, to say the least, strained and far-fetched. In one instance in a thousand, perhaps, it might possibly bear such a translation. But it is doubtful. Certainly no such translation is given to it in the New Testament, although it is used about four hundred times.

Nor is this all. His translation of the last part of the sentence is not only without adequate foundation; it is absolutely against all the dictionaries and all the examples which I have been able to find. It is another illustration of the doctor's facility of assumption. "What avails his dipping, or immersion?" he renders it. The Greek word is loutro. Louo, the verb, is used six times in the Greek Testament and is always translated "wash." The noun is used twice and is in both cases translated "washing." The transla-

92 Baptism.

tion that I have given to it expresses the idea perfectly: "If he touch the dead body again, what avails his cleansing ?"

The word often and more strictly means "a bath." And this suggests the very interesting and pertinent question as to what was the ancient method of bathing. For, as you know without any doubt, Baptist writers generally insist that "bathing" implies immersion. This is the doctor's assumption in his translation of this passage before us. It is a groundless assumption. I think whoever studies the subject thoroughly will find it true that in all Eastern bathing, in both ancient and modern times, it was regarded as a matter of chief importance that the water should be in motion. This was especially so among the Jews. The water applied to the ashes was to be "running water," as seen from the quotation above. (Num. 19:17.) In the Hebrew it is literally

Baptism. 93

"living" water. (See marginal rendering in Num. 19:17; Lev. 14:50, 51, 52.)

This was the idea with the Greeks and Romans as illustrated by their baths, as described by Dr. William Smith in his dictionary of Greek and Roman Antiquities. "It would appear," he says, "from the description of the bath administered to Ulysses in the palace of Circe, that the vessel did not contain water itself, but was only used for the bather to sit in while the water was poured over him. The water was heated in a large caldron, under which the fire was placed, and when sufficiently warmed was taken out in other vessels and poured over the head and shoulders of the person who sat in the bathtub."

Dr. Smith further says: "On ancient vases, on which persons are represented bathing, we never find anything corresponding to a modern bath in which persons can stand or sit; but there is always

94 Baptism.

a round or oval basin resting on a stand, by the side of which those who are bathing are represented standing undressed and washing themselves." 1

1 See Dr. Smith's Dictionary: Article, " Baths."

Confirmatory of this is a description given by Plutarch of bathing among the Greeks, in which he says: "Some give orders to throw the water on cold ; others warm." 2

2 See Wilson on Baptism, p. 167.

Wilkinson, on the manners and customs of the ancient Egyptians, speaks of a painting in an old tomb at Thebes, which represents a lady at the bath, in which one of her attendants is pouring water from a vase over her head.3

3 vol. iii, p. 328.

Travelers in the East find the same custom, even when persons resort to a river for bathing. It is not for immersion, but for running water, which is thrown, poured, or sprinkled upon the bather. WATER IN

Baptism. 95

MOTION seems everywhere to be sought for.

There is still another criticism upon the doctor's translation of the passage from the Son of Sirach. He translates : "If he who has dipped or immersed himself," etc. The doctor could not have failed to know, had he thought but a moment, that the person who had touched a dead body could not cleanse himself by any process whatever. The cleansing must be wrought by means of the sprinkling of the water of cleansing by another, that other being free from any taint of uncleanness.1

1 A clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead: and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day, Num. 19; 18, 59.

The doctor's translation is every way awry: the only fair translation is the one which I have quoted substantially from the common edition of the Apocrypba, sometimes bound up with our old version.

LETTER VIII.

AS in your response to my last letter you express yourself entirely satisfied with the force of the argument based upon the usage of baptizo in the Septuagint, we are prepared to go forward.

The importance of this showing as to the accepted usage of the word at the time the New Testament was written cannot be overestimated; for thus it appears that this word was well understood among the Jews to mean just what I have claimed. It conveyed to those who heard Christ's teaching no other idea than that of ceremonial cleansing by water without regard to the mode of its application. This Greek translation of the sacred writings was the one with

Baptism. 97

which they were more familiar than they were even with the Hebrew Bible, it is from the Septuagint that Christ and the apostles generally quote.

True the word is found only three times in the Septuagint, but that is enough to illustrate the usage; and it is interesting to notice that in one of these three the baptism was by sprinkling, in one by immersion, in the other certainly, or almost certainly, not by immersion and probably by pouring. But whatever the mode of applying the water the word baptizo is used only in the general sense of ceremonial cleansing. Naaman baptized himself by immersion in the running Jordan. The man who had touched a dead body was baptized by sprinkling. Judith baptized herself at the fountain by sprinkling or pouring.

THE JEWS WERE THUS ALREADY ACCUSTOMED, AND HAD BEEN ACCUSTOMED FOR

98 Baptism.

Two HUNDRED YEARS OR MORE, to using this word in this sense.

Does the meaning in the New Testament correspond with this usage?

To this it might be answered: "Of course it must have corresponded to this, for the Septuagint constituted the basis of their language." But I do not propose to assume so much as this. On the contrary, if you will have the patience to follow me, I will refer to every passage in which the word occurs. It is most fitting to begin with that found in Hebrews 9:10. You will see why. It is because the writer is referring to Jewish ordinances and customs; and these, of course, antedate those which are properly Christian.

The writer to the Hebrews is discoursing of the ceremonial dispensation "which stood only in meats and drinks and 'divers baptisms.'" (Greek, baptismois)

In my review of the position which I

Baptism. 99

had so long and so honestly occupied (as I have spoken of it in my first letter) I said to myself when I came to this verse:

"Here I shall find my Baptist views well sustained; there are plenty of immersions laid down in the ceremonial law to justify the writer of this epistle in speaking of them as 'divers baptisms.'" Accordingly I set myself to making an array of them. If you have not gone through with this or some similar experiment, you will scarcely be prepared to appreciate my astonishment at not being able to find one. Purifyings there were —" divers" of them; but immersions not one! Of course my method was to take my Hebrew concordance and trace all the passages in which tawbal was used in the Old Testament in setting forth the things required of the worshiper. As I have previously stated, I found that the word was used only sixteen times in all, and the only

100 Baptism.

instance that approached a ceremonial usage, such as this verse speaks of, was Naaman's dipping or immersing himself in the Jordan; and in that case I found that he was not commanded to dip or immerse himself, but to cleanse himself. He chose to do it by immersion, and as the method of cleansing was not specified, it was proper for him to choose his own. I have not succeeded thus far in finding one instance in which anybody was required to dip or immerse himself, or to be dipped or immersed by another, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Malachi. And yet the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of this Old Testament Dispensation as embracing "divers baptisms."

You can readily believe that my previous notion that baptism always meant immersion received at this point another staggering blow. "Divers baptisms" — NOT ONE IMMERSION, is the way the case

Baptism. 101

stands. The Hebrews, to whom this epistle was written, understood the matter. Long before this the word baptism had come to mean ceremonial water cleansing, and not immersion, in all the sacred writings. Shall we find that it never means anything else, except in a figurative sense? We shall see.

For the present we confine our thoughts to this passage and must agree, I think, that upon the assumption that baptism meant ceremonial water cleansing, everything is clear; but assume for a moment that it meant immersion, and everything is dark. More than that—what the writer to the Hebrew says is impossible to be understood at all upon that assumption.

To this may be added the evidence from the context, which plainly indicates that the reference is to the "purifyings" under the law, and not to immersions, even had there been any; for the writer goes on to

102 Baptism.

say: "If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God ?" (Heb. 9:13, 14.)

The ceremonial purifyings of the Old Testament Dispensation contrasted with the spiritual cleansing wrought through the blood of Christ is the obvious scope of the entire passage. Our translation uses the word " washings" where it is baptismois in the Greek; but the word "purifyings" or "cleansings" would be preferable; for it appears from the passage itself that the writer has in mind the purifyings that were by sprinkling — that word being introduced no less than three times within nine verses. Read at your leisure the

Baptism. 103

whole chapter, and you will see that I am not mistaken in my interpretation of it.

. I think that I do not speak too strongly when I say that "divers immersions" is an utterly impossible version of the words which are so rendered by the Baptist Union.

MARK 7:2-4.

An allusion to Jewish customs that comes next in order is that found in the first part of the seventh chapter of Mark. I quote the verses : —

"There are gathered together unto him the Pharisees and certain of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of the disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, with unwashen hands: For the Pharisees and all the

Jews, except they wash their hands with the fist, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market, except they baptize themselves,

104 Baptism.

they eat not; and many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the baptizings of cups and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables."

This is a very interesting passage. I have given it my own translation, which I will proceed to explain and defend. The word pugme I have translated literally — "with the fist." In the old version it is translated "oft" ; in the new version "diligently." I think that there is more light upon this point than has generally been seen hitherto, and after thorough study of the matter I have been entirely clear that the rendering which I have given it, suggested by M. C. Hazard in The Congregationatist, is the true one. But to that I will come again presently.

The first thing I wish to call, your attention to is the practice to which allusion is here made of baptizing themselves whenever they returned from the market. That

Baptism. 105

this was immersion is incredible. Everybody in the East goes often to the marketplace. It is a large open square and is the great public resort. It would require, with many, several immersions a day. Even "bathing," as we have seen, was not performed by immersion, and this "baptizing," of which Mark speaks, was obviously for ceremonial cleansing. The people had always known that even after having touched a dead body the "baptizing" was by sprinkling. The ceremonial cleansing from the leprosy was by sprinkling. "The priest shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times" (Lev. 14: 7). At the public market one might have unknowingly touched some leper, or some unclean beast, or some one who was unclean from having touched a dead body; and it was not an unnatural thing that he should conclude that it was a proper precaution

106 Baptism.

to cleanse himself upon his return home; and the first thing he would think of was to do it by sprinkling. HE WOULD NEVER THINK OF DOING IT BY IMMERSION, there not being a single requirement for immersion in the whole Mosaic code. Moreover it must be by WATER IN MOTION. "Running water "— "living water" was always prescribed (see Lev. 14: 5, 6, 51, 52; 15: 13; Num. 19: 17). This is a most important point to be noticed; and I beg of you to read the passages which I have indicated, so as to fix that point in mind thoroughly. As we have already seen, NO BATHING TUB FOR IMMERSION WAS EVER USED. When such a tub was used in connection with the bathing of the whole person, the bather used it simply for a receptacle of the water after it had been sprinkled or poured upon the body. The water was then defiled and unfit for further use.

Baptism. 107

The method of washing the hands at the present day as I found it in Syria and in Turkey is very suggestive of what there is every reason to believe was the custom in all Bible lands and Bible times. If you enter a house, the servant appears with a washbowl and pitcher. But you are never expected to pour water into the bowl and wash, as our habit is. The empty bowl is put in a place convenient for you to hold your hands over it. The attendant then pours the water on your hands, and you wash them with soap or without, and the dirty water falls into the bowl. It would shock every Oriental idea were you to dip your hands into the bowl unless you were without any possible means of doing otherwise. The water poured from the pitcher becomes "running water," and your hands are cleansed in that way.

And now we are prepared to under-

108 Baptism.

stand that clause about washing "with the fist." Many times there is no servant in attendance to pour the water or to sprinkle it upon the Oriental traveler or upon this man who comes home after contact with something or with somebody unclean. He must himself, therefore, perform the whole ceremony. How does he do it? He lays hold upon the pitcher himself with one hand and pours the water upon the other; and in turn takes the pitcher in the other hand and pours the water upon the first. So they are both cleansed in the "running water." I quote here the words of Mr. Hazard, to which I referred a little while ago : —

"It was a feeling that the real explanation of this passage had not yet been reached that led me several years ago to take the passage to a noted Jewish rabbi for interpretation. He read it in the Greek, and then contemptuously said: 'It is evi-

Baptism. 109

dent that Mark did not know what he was talking about.' Catching my breath at such an easy disposing of the matter and of the author of the second Gospel, I approached the subject from a new direction. I asked the rabbi whether it is true that now the Pharisees do not eat, except as they first baptize their hands. He replied in the affirmative, and, on my request for more information, said: 'But we do not baptize them as you do in a quiet pool, but in running water, either in a natural stream or in the water flowing from a hydrant, or in water poured from some vessel by main strength from one hand upon the other.' The expression 'by main strength' immediately caught my attention, and I said to him: 'Rabbi, I thought that you said that Mark did not know what he was writing about. When he says "from the fist," doesn't he mean exactly what you have now said? Ordi-

110 Baptism.

narily it would have been impossible in Mark's day for any one to have baptized his hands at home in running water, except as he poured it out of some pitcher or basin "from the fist" upon the other hand.' The rabbi thought for a moment, and then, with a candor which much commended this modern Pharisee, said: 'I was wrong; that was what Mark did mean.'"

Mr. Hazard then goes on to say: "The rabbi had awakened my curiosity in saying that the Jews never baptize their hands except in running water, and I asked him for the reason of that. His reply was that 'still water represents death and corruption, and running water life and the quickening influences of God's Spirit.' 'In any of their ceremonial lavations,' I inquired, 'do the Jews lay any emphasis upon the amount of water in which they baptize?' 'None; the tiniest stream of

Baptism. 111

water would suffice for his most complete ceremonial lavation.'"

There is also another practice which the modern traveler has frequent occasion to observe, which may have prevailed in New Testament times, and to which reference may have been made in this passage. Sometimes there is no vessel which the man can lift even "by main strength," and in that case he takes up a "fist" full of water— say in his right hand—and pours it or sprinkles it upon the left. The left is thus cleansed. But, although the right hand has gone into the water, it is not yet cleansed; for it went only into the stagnant water. The left "fist "in like manner is used to cleanse the right hand by water set in motion; so thoroughly is the mind possessed of the idea that it must be water in motion in order to effect the cleansing. One who sees day after day this process constantly gone through with

112 Baptism.

can easily believe that it might have been this which was referred to by Mark.

This word pugme has always been a troublesome one to the translator and to the commentator. It is found only once in the New Testament, and hence there is no opportunity for comparing different passages in which it is used. But it is thoroughly confirmatory of this interpretation to notice that this same word is used twice in the Septuagint, and in both cases it is unhesitatingly to be translated "with the fist," and nothing else.1

1 If men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed, etc. Ex. 21: 18. Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness. Is. 58: 4.

It is, therefore, almost certain to my mind that this is the only proper translation here; and it renders a very obscure passage entirely intelligible. It may also be added that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find any

Baptism. 113

authority in classic Greek for the translation given, either in the old or the new version. I have never seen quoted, in any Greek lexicon, a single passage in which the word is supposed to mean either oft or diligently. Liddell and Scott refer only to the passage in Mark, as one in regard to which they do not commit themselves; but only say that "it is interpreted by some to mean diligently, and by others oft." Professor Thayer, in his lexicon of the New Testament, seems decidedly to accept the translation which is here advocated, although he makes a different comment upon it.1

1 Pugme niptesthai tas cheiras, to wash the hands with the fist, that is, so that one hand is rubbed with the clenched fist of the other. Translating "with the fist," each reader can decide for himself which of the two explanations is the more natural. With the Eastern custom in mind, as it is seen everywhere, it is easy for me to decide; for Professor Thayer's comment is just as consistent with our fashion of washing as with theirs, and does not imply that the water is in motion at all, which with them is the main thing. I have often seen the ceremonial cleansing of very dirty hands without the slightest attempt at any rubbing. In truth, the hands were just as dirty after the " cleansing" as before. But they had sprinkled the water very vigorously.

Baptism. 114

In this same passage is the reference to the baptism of "tables," and, according to some of the manuscripts, of "couches." I am aware that the most approved manuscripts do not contain either of these words. But the fact that these readings are among the oldest shows that they were accepted for centuries; and they never would have been introduced had there been any supposed impossibility in baptizing tables and couches. Their immersion was a manifest impossibility. Let any one visit the old city of Pompeii, buried up in A.D. 70, and see the uniform construction of their tables — occupying three sides of a hollow square, stationary, incapable of immersion — and all doubt on that subject will be at once removed. They were baptized, if at all, by sprinkling, beyond any reasonable question. Baptizo had long before that come to express the idea of ceremonial purification;

Baptism. 115

such ceremonial purification was never once required to be by immersion; it was, in many instances, commanded to be by sprinkling, and hence it is the most natural conclusion possible that they never dreamed of baptizing tables and couches by dipping them.

In Luke II : 38 is another passage showing the use of the word baptizo among the Jews. A Pharisee had invited Jesus to dine with him, and he went in and sat down to meat: "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that he had not first baptized himself before eating." It is very hard to believe that Christ was expected to immerse himself before eating.

This is evidently the same sort of thing that is spoken of in the passage which we have just been considering. Christ had been mingling with the multitude. It was the need of ceremonial cleansing in the

116 Baptism.

ordinary way which they had in mind. That was by sprinkling. There is no proof that their houses were constructed with accommodations for immersion of all their guests: the proof is on the other side.

In the account of the marriage at Cana of Galilee we have the thing so described as to make it visible. "There were set twelve firkins after the manner of the Jews purifying." From this water the guests drew off and sprinkled themselves—or the servants poured it upon them. The water was so used that it was entirely fit for drinking purposes. Not even the hands of the guests were put into it; it was for something very different from immersion.

Next in chronological order comes the use of this word in describing John's baptism, and I begin by saying that even if it could be proved that immersion was

Baptism. 117

sometimes practiced in New Testament times — nay, if it could be proved that it was always practiced—that would not settle the question that immersion was required. That is to be determined only by the meaning of the word.

"What does the law of Christ require?" is the only question that vitally concerns us. Christ and his apostles sat while they preached. We are commanded to preach, but we are not commanded to sit while we preach. Christ and his apostles always traveled either on foot or on horseback or in boats, when they went on their preaching tours. We are commanded to go into all the world with the gospel, but we are not commanded to go in the same way they went. Christ and his apostles celebrated the Lord's supper reclining at table. (This is the only meaning of the word used in the Greek, although our translators have rendered it by our word "sit.")

118 Baptism.

We are commanded to eat and drink, but we are not commanded to do it reclining. They went about doing good, wearing sandals and loose flowing togas. We are required to go about doing good, but we are not confined to their manner of doing it.

As to the meaning of the words "baptize" and "baptism," we have found that they were sometimes (to say the least) used of ceremonial cleansing which was performed without immersion; that the writer to the Hebrews refers to the Old Dispensation as requiring of the worshiper "divers baptisms," while in the Old Testament IMMERSION IS NEVER ONCE REQUIRED.

This settles the question — that the law of baptism does not require immersion; and the particular manner, therefore, in which John and the apostles baptized is as immaterial to us as their manner of dressing, their methods of missionary

Baptism. 119

travel, or their position at the Lord's table.

I say thus much because we ought always to make this discrimination between what the apostles did and what we are required to do. They had all things common, and it has sometimes been argued that their example is a law to us. This is a mistake. Their example is not at all binding upon us any farther than it can be shown that it was in accordance with the commands of the Master.

I do not speak of this because I think that, as a matter of fact, John the Baptist and the apostles baptized by immersion as a general thing. I do not think that they did. In some cases it is certain to my mind that they did not: in none is it certain that they did. But even if they did, it imposes no obligation on us.

With this preliminary statement we can come to the study of the history with a

120 Baptism.

proper appreciation of the weight of the argument, whatever it may be. First in order comes the record of John's baptism.

It is argued that this was by immersion on two grounds : —