BV 811 .H88 Hughey, G. W. (George Washington), b. 1832 The Scriptural mode of Christian baotism ,':.4y' Rev. G. W. HUGHEY, A.M., D.D. THE SCRIPTURAL MODE OP CHRISTIAN BAPTISM BY Rev. G. W. Hughey, A.M., D.D., St. Louis Conference, Mkthodist Kpiscopai, Church. Author of 'Political Romanism," "Christian Rule of Faith," "Ingersollism," "Baptismal Remission," "Infant Baptism," "Divine Author- ity OF the Christian Sabbath," "Women in the General Conference," "Remarkable Experiences, Inci- dents, and Answers to Prayers," "Free- dom FROM SiN,'» Etc., Etc. 1907. Copyright 1907, by Rbv. G. W. HUGHEY, A.m., D.D., Galena, Mo. CONTENTS. Introduction. Christianity a Universal Religion. Hence the probability that its rites, ceremonies, and sacraments would be of universal application, pp. 13-16. A Baptist minister's idea of the unphysiological character of immersion and its inappli- cability to all classes and conditions of the human race, pp. 16-23. Chapter I. The Position of Immersionists. The grounds on which they predicate their claim for immersion, pp. 24-25. The want of agreement among immersionists in regard to the meaning of haptidzo, p. 25. Carson and Campbell's position, pp. 25-26. Gale, Morrell, Cox, and Fuller's position, pp. 26-27. Conant's position, p. 28. Chapter II. Our Position on the Meaning of "Baptidzo." Dr. Dale's position, p. 30. Drs. Carson and Hinton on use, pp. 31-32. Dr. Dwight, pp. 31-32. Dr. Albert Barnes, p. 32. Prof. Porson, p. 32. Dr. Richard Robinson, pp. 32-33. Dr. Gale, p. 33. Chapter III. "Bapto" the Root of "Baptidzo" and the Lexicons. Classical and Scriptural usages, p. 34. The lexicons, pp. 35-36. Classical use: Homer, pp. 36-37; iSschylus, p. 38; Aristophanes, p. 39; Hippocrates, pp. 39-40; Plato, p. 40; Alcibiades, p. 41; Aristotle, p. 41; Diodorus Siculus, p. 41; Plutarch, pp. 41-42; Marcus Antoninus, p. 42. Carson's classical examples, pp. 43-44. His Scriptural examples, pp. 44-46. Daniel 4: 33 and 5: 31, p. 47. New Testament use, pp. 47-48. Greek fathers, pp. 48-49. Chapter IV. "Baptidzo" — The Lexicons. Carson's admission, pp. 51-52. The testimony of the lexicons, pp. 52-60. I^iddell and Scott, pp. 60-63. V vi CONTENTS. Chapter V. The Testimony of Commentators, Critics, and Scholars. The commentators, pp. 64-65 Critics and scholars, pp. 65-70. The cyclopedias, pp. 70-71. Chapter VI. The Classical Use of "Daptidzo." Dr. Carson on use, pp. 72-73. Dr. George Campbell on use, pp. 74-76. Dr. Hinton on use, p. 77. Dr. Carson's classical examples, pp. 74-80. Dr. Conant's examples, pp. 82-97 Chapter VII. The Use of "Baptidzo" and "Baptismos" in the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament Where John's Baptism and the Christian Ordinance Are Not Spoken of. Dr. Hinton, p. 99. Second Kings 5:14, pp loo-ioi. Judith 12:7, pp. 104-106. Baptism from a dead body, The Wisdom of Sirach 34:40, pp. 107-111. New Testament use: Hebrews 9: 10, p. II I ; First Corinthians 10: 1-2, p. 113. How was this baptism performed, pp. 115-117. Rev. J. K. vSpeer's acknowledgment, p, 117. Luke 11: 38 and Mark 7: 3, p. 118. Mark 7: 4, pp. 119-121. Christ's baptism of sufferings, Mark 10: 38-39 and Luke 12: 50, pp. 122-125, Chapter VIII. The Force and Meaning of the Prepositions Used with "Baptidzo." The meaning of eis, pp. 127-129. The meaning of en, pp. 129- 130. The meaning of ek, pp. 130-131. The meaning of apo, p. 132' Chapter IX. The Use the Early Greek and Latin Fathers Made of "Baptidzo" and "Baptismos." The Greek use» p. 133. Mr. Campbell on dupto, pp. 133-134. Dr. Conant's examples from the Greek fathers, pp. 134-137. Ex- amples from Prof. Moses vStuart, p. 137. Conant's examples from Latin fathers, pp. 138-140. Chapter X. John's Baptism. The baptism of John, p. 141 ; in Jordan, p. 142 • in Bethabara, pp. 142-143. J. vS. vSweeney on "in Bethabara, pp. 143-144. Bethabara the ferry-boat, pp. 144-145. The length of John's min- istry, pp. 145-146. Sprinkling the uniform practice among the Jews through all their history, pp. 146-151. "Straightway out of CONTENTS. vii the water," p. 152. Apo in Matthew 3:16 and Mark i : 10, p. 152. "Away from the water," p. 153. Baptism in Enon, p. 154. John baptized with water, p. 155. Meaning of en — its use in the New Testament and Septuagint, pp. 156-157. Immersed in the Holy- Ghost, p. 158. Baptism of the Holy Ghost, how performed, pp. 159-160. Mode or action the same in the baptism of the Holy Spirit and that of water, Campbell's position, pp. 161-162. Chapter XI. Apostolic Baptism. The three thousand on the day of Pentecost, pp. 163-165. The Ethiopian eunuch, pp. 165-168. Prof. Moses Stuart on the case, pp. 169-172. Plain facts in the case, p. 172-174. Paul's baptism in the house standing up, p. 175. The baptism of Cornelius, his house- hold, and his friends, pp. 176-177. The baptism of Lydia and her household, pp. 178-179. The baptism of the jailer and his family, pp. 180-182. The unity of the mode of the baptism of the Holy Spirit and of water, pp. 182-184, Chapter XII Buried in Baptism. Two baptisms permanent in the Church of God — the baptism of the Holy Spirit and the baptism of water, pp. 185-187. Buried into Jesus Christ — into His death, pp. 188-189. Prof. Moses Stuart on Romans 6: 1-6 and Colossians 2: 11-12, pp. 1 91-193. Baptism does not represent death, but life, pp. 195-196. Chapter XIII. Baptism a Washing. A washing not an immersion, pp. 198-199. Dr. Fairfield on bathing, pp. 200-203. Mr. Hazard and the Jewish rabbi, p. 204. Washed in the blood of the Lamb, pp. 205-206, The real washing from sin is done by sprinkling, pp. 207-208. Chapter XIV. One Lord, One Faith, One Baptism. Ephesians 4:2-6, p. 209. First Corinthians 12:13, p. 210. The charge that we practice three baptisms, pp. 21 1-2 12. Braden and Hughey debate, p. 212. Chapter XV. History of the Mode of Baptism. Dr. Mosheim's statement, p. 213. Remarks on the statement, pp. 213-214. Professor W. G. Williams' statement, p. 214 Monu- mental history of ancient baptism, pictures of ancient baptism and viii CONTENTS. ancient baptismal fonts, p. 215, Dr. Richard Robinson, of Cam- bridge, Eng., Baptist, pp. 215-216. Remarks on Dr. Robinson, pp. 217-218. Mr. Cote on baptism and baptisteries, pp. 219-221. Picture of the baptism of Christ in the Chapel of the Baptistery in the Catacombs, pp. 223-224, Other pictures of the baptism of Christ, pp. 225-226. Other baptisms, p. 228. The baptism of Romanus by St. Lawrence, p. 229. Other baptisms outside of churches, p. 231. Baptism of Constantine the Great, p. 232. Baptism of the Lombard king and queen, p. 233. Remarks on these pictures, pp. 233-235. Lactantius, p. 235. Aurelius Pru- dentius, p. 235. Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, p. 236. St. Bernard, pp. 236-237. Testimony of the twelfth century, p. 237. Baptismal fonts, p. 237. Evidence from the Catacombs, pp. 237-238. Bap- tized with his own tears, p. 239. Justin Martyr, pp. 240-243. Teachings of the Twelve Apostles, p. 244. Barnabas, p. 245. Sim- ilitudes of Hermas, p. 247. Irenseus, p. 248. Clement of Alex- andria, p 249. Tertullian, p. 254. On tradition, pp. 255-256. On baptism by sprinkling, pp. 257-258. TertuUian's use of lingo, definitions by the lexicons, pp. 260-262, Cyprian, p. 264. He de- clares sprinkling valid baptism and Scriptural, pp. 264-266. Origen, p. 267. Eusebius, p. 268. Bassilades baptized in prison, p. 268. Panegyric on the Church at Tyre, p. 269. Augustine, p. 269. So- zomen, pp. 270-272. Gennadius, p. 273. Severus, p. 274. Modem Greek Church, pp. 274-275. Rev. Pliny Fisk, p, 275. Dr. Kurtz, p. 276. The Waldenses, p. 276. Christians of Mesopotamia, p. 277. Descend into the water, p. 278. Practices during the Dark Ages, p. 278. The claim of immersion ists that unimmersed persons were inhibited holy orders, pp. 278-279. Novatian, pp. 279-280. The early Church not an immersionist Church, p. 281. How immersion was introduced, pp. 282-283. PREFACE. Why another book on ' ' Baptism " ? The subject has been discussed for hundreds of years, and thousands of volumes have been written upon it, and the subject is still unsettled. This is all true, and yet there is no subject that has more interest in it to the people in general than this much-discussed subject. There is no discussion on any theological question, especially in the rural com- munities, that will draw such crowds and create such in- terest as a discussion on the subject of "Baptism." The reason the author has for the publication of this book may be stated as follows : On my first charge, Raleigh Circuit, Southern Illinois Conference, in August, 1853, when I was but twenty-one years of age, I had a debate with a very prominent Baptist minister in that part of the State on the subject and mode of "Baptism." We discussed "In- fant Baptism" two days and a half, and the mode half a day, and he left the field without replying to my third speech. That gave me quite a reputation as a debater, and when such work had to be done in all that country, I was generally sent for to do it. As a result, I had to meet the champions of immersion of the West, such as J. Cole, Baptist, and J. S. Sweeny, J. K. Speer, Dr. J. H. Lucas, Clarke Braden, and W. B. F. Treat, of the Disciple or Campbellite Church. For the last twenty years I have frequently been called to deliver a series of lectures on the subject in various places in Illinois and Missouri, and of 9 —2— 10 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. course I had to go to the bottom of the subject in pre- paring for these debates and lectures. For fifty-three years I have thus been compelled to study this question. For a number of years past many of my brethren in different Conferences have urged me to give the results of these years of study to the Church in a permanent form before I go hence. In compliance with these requests, I have pre- pared the following pages, and I trust they may be made a blessing to those who may be perplexed on this subject. The writers whom I have consulted most in the prep- aration of these pages on the side of immersion have been : Dr. Richard Robinson, of Cambridge, in his "History of Baptism"; Dr. Alexander Carson, whom I regard as the ablest and the most conscientious writer on that side of the question ; Alexander Campbell, the great founder and leader of the Church that familiarly bears his name ; and Dr. Conant, in his "Baptizein." The writers on our side to whom I wish to acknowledge my indebtedness are: Dr. J. Ditzler, whose incomparable work on "Baptism" is a thesaurus of information on the subject and the mas- ter of all the books on the philological argument, and who has kindly permitted me to draw at will from his matchless treasure of information, for which both the writer and reader are under profound obligations; Dr. Dale's "Classic and Judaic Baptism" ; Prof. Moses Stuart ; Dr. James L. Chapman; Charles Taylor's "Apostolic Bap- tism" ; and Dr. E. B. Fairfield's "Letters on Baptism." In closing this laborious task, that has taken a year and eight months of hard and almost unceasing toil, I wish to express my profound gratitude to my Heavenly Father for sparing my life and giving me health to com- plete this laborious task at my advanced age. And now I send it out on its mission, praying that it may be made a blessing to all who may read it, and that it may contribute The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. n to the glory of God in helping to set forth His truth in regard to the ordinance of Christian baptism. G. W. HUGHEY. Galena, Mo., November 15, 1906. INTRODUCTION. Christianity was designed by its Author to be a universal religion and we should reasonably expect to find it adapted to all ages, climes, and conditions of the human race. The reasonable probability is, therefore, that its Author would adopt such rites, ceremonies, and sacra- ments as could apply to all ages, races, and conditions of the human race ; such as would equally apply to those living under the burning rays of a tropical sun, or those living in the region of perpetual ice and snow of the Arctic Circle; such as could be administered to a man without delay in the great Sahara of Africa, or at the Poles; to the strong man of robust health, or the tender and delicate female who could not stand a breath of fresh air, or to the helpless invalid on his couch of pain. If the Author of Christianity adopted a sacrament the mode of which makes it impossible to be administered in all places, to all persons, and under all circumstances, He made a stupendous blunder, such as we cannot charge upon Infinite Wisdom. If Jesus enjoined immersion, then he enjoined a rite that cannot be complied with in many parts of the globe and in multitudes of cases among men and women. If baptism is an essential condition of the remission of sins, and immersion alone is baptism, then under all these conditions and circumstances remis- sion of sins is impossible, and Christ has instituted a rite that makes salvation impossible in a large part of our 13 14 Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. earth and to multitudes of its inhabitants. To charge upon the Son of God such a blunder as this is to deny His omniscience or His compassion for lost and helpless hu- manity. We cannot look upon such a thing as possible, and its probability is out of the question, that Jesus, Who came into the world to save men at the fearful cost of the sacrifice of Himself on the cross, could have enjoined im- mersion, and thus make the salvation of multitudes of those for whom He died impossible, without any fault of their own. Such a thought is too dishonoring to the all- loving Savior to be entertained for a moment. 2. Baptism is a positive institution. It rests upon no moral principle for its authority, but alone upon the will and command of its Author. It is therefore of the highest probability that the all-loving Savior of men would select such a mode for this positive institution of His religion as would be the least burdensome to His faithful children. That immersion is under many cir- cumstances more burdensome than was circumcision under the old law is apparent to every reflecting mind. In positive institutions we must always expect a cor- respondence between the institution and the thing it is designed to represent. Circumcision was a positive insti- tution, and it had direct reference to the circumcision of the heart — the cutting off of sin from the heart. The baptisms of the law were all positive institutions, and they all had reference to spiritual cleansing. Christian baptism has direct reference to the purification of the heart by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It is the con- stant symbol of regeneration and the purification of the heart from sin. John recognized this in regard to his bap- tism ; he said : "I indeed baptize you with water — He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." Jesus recognized the same thing when He said: "For John truly baptized The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 15 with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost, not many days hence." This connection is so clearly taught in the New Tes- tament that the early Christian writers called baptism regeneration, as we show in our chapter on "The History of Baptism"; not that they believed that it was the real regeneration, but it was the symbol of it. Hence Justin Martyr, who calls it regeneration, says: "What need have I of that other baptism, who have already received the baptism of the Holy Ghost?" Showing that he un- derstood that the baptism of water was but the emblem or symbol of the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It is but reasonable that there should be agreement between the mode of the real baptism and its emblem or symbol. We have shown in our chapter on "The History of Baptism" that the idea that baptism was designed to represent "the burial and resurrection of Christ" was unknown in the early Church, and only came in after triune immersion became general, to justify that practice. > 3. It is a fact that women on an average from four- teen to forty-five, for at least one-fourth of that period, could not be immersed without great danger to their lives or health. Can we accept it as probable that our Lord would have enjoined a mode of baptism fraught with such danger to the health and lives of His obedient children? I cannot believe that our Lord would make any such requirement. 4. Even in temperate climates, for nearly half the year immersion in streams, where often the ice has to be broken, cannot be performed without great danger to the health and life both of the administrator and the person baptized, especially if they should not be of robust health or constitution. To avoid this danger, our immersionist friends in the cities and larger towns have baptisteries in 1 6 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. their churches, with pipes to warm the water, and rubber baptismal robes to provide against the danger to Hfe and health which they thus acknowledge is liable to result from immersion in cold water out of doors. These facts no doubt often occur to the minds of con- scientious immersionists. Dr. E. B. FairFiEIvD gives us an example of this in his "Letters on Baptism," which I will transcribe, together with his comments oh the subject. He says : "Some years ago, while I was still in the Baptist ministry, but after I had ceased to preach on 'Baptism,' and in my own mind had ceased to insist on immersion, I met a Baptist clergyman who was an entire stranger to my own thoughts, and who said to me: 'Has it never oc- curred to you that the Great Head of the Church, in estab- lishing an ordinance for all time and for all latitudes and for all seasons of the year, would not be likely to give the Church one that is so utterly unphysiological as immer- sion? Now, I have studied medicine, and practiced as a physician fifteen years, and I know that what I say is true. It is contrary to ai^l thk laws of ufk and HEALTH, EITHER FOR THE BAPTIZED OR FOR THE ADMIN- ISTRATOR.' I was quite startled to hear such words from a Baptist minister, but after a moment I confessed to him my own thoughts and my own experience ; for on several occasions I had been ill for days after baptizing a large number of persons in the spring, following a winter of special revival. "Here is an ordinance for the world; for mission- aries in all countries; for every convert, immediately upon his conversion; and one would naturally anticipate that it would be one to which he could give heed at any time of the year, or in any locality where he might be. But if our Baptist brethren have the right understanding Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 17 of it, it is not. Many (I think most) Baptist ministers are obliged, from regard to their own Hfe and heahh as well as out of regard to the health of some of those con- verted to Christ, to postpone the baptism of those con- verted in the winter until the coming of the spring or summer. Ministers in impaired health are not able to attend to it at all. "I was present in Spurgeon's church in the summer of 1873, on the occasion of the baptism of ten or twelve persons. The pastor preached every Sabbath. He was present, and as well as usual, at the time of this baptism, but another minister performed the ceremony ; and I was informed by a member of the church that the reason Mr. Spurgeon himself did not perform the ceremony was that his health would not justify him in doing it. Certainly his friend was not selected because of his special skill, for I have never seen immersion more ungracefully executed. "To me it seems an ungracious task to argue in fa- vor of a ceremony of admission to a Christian Church which the pastor of the church must get somebody else to perform. "So it might often happen that, in a large district of country, there would be found no facilities for immersion. "In the spring of 1864 I spent a month in traveling in Palestine. I was then a Baptist, and always expected to remain so. I did not travel out of my way to find water for baptism; but, as it was the month of March, and the latter rain had just ceased, it would be a favorable time for finding suitable conveniences for immersion, if such there were. Yet, aside from the Mediterranean and the Sea of Galilee, I found only one or two places where immersion would have been practicable. It was not oftener than once in four days, on the average, that we 1 8 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. could have baptized the eunuch in that method, had we fallen in with him and had he so required. "And the Jordan was not one of these places. As we stood upon the banks of the furious, foaming, dashing river, and the words, 'What will ye do in the swellings thereof?' naturally occurred to me, I replied inwardly, 'I do not know; but certainly not undertake to baptize anybody by immersion, unless I wished literally to bury him by baptism into death.' I would as soon have thought of performing immersion in the Niagara, half a mile above the cataract, as at the Fords of the Jordan, in the month of March, 1864. And in many other countries and localities it would be more difficult to find facilities for immersion than in Palestine. Even in countries which are regarded as well watered, it is not always easy." (Fairfield's "Letters on Baptism," pp. 231 to 236.) These considerations ought to have great weight, and they must have on all thoughtful minds, whatever may be their opinions on the mode of baptism. To me it is not only not at all probable, but it is not possible for the Great Head of the Church, in instituting an ordinance for all time, all climates, and all conditions of the human race, to in- stitute one which could not apply to so large a part of our earth and to so many millions of its inhabitants as immersion cannot. On the other hand, our mode meets all the require- ments of a universal ordinance. It meets every case and condition of the human race, in every clime, season, or country. Wherever men can find water enough to pre- serve life , they can find water enough for the ordinance of Christian baptism. There need be no delay. No danger to the life or health of the baptizer or the baptized, it matters not however feeble or delicate the health or how- ever rigorous the climate or the season. No soul need The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 19 perish for want of the faciHties for baptism if we hold with many immersionists, that remission of sins can be obtained only in baptism; or if we hold with the great majority of immersionists, that baptism is the only door of entrance into the visible Church of Christ and to the communion and fellowship of the Church ; it meets all the requirements in either case, and was selected by the Great Head of the Church for this very reason, that no one might be deprived of the privilege of Church fellowship or of the benefits of communion in the Church of God. 5. Under the law of Moses, ceremonial cleansing was always by sprinkling. If there was a deviation from the mode of simple sprinkling (Leviticus xv. 18), or the man who sprinkled the water of separation on the man who had touched a dead body (Numbers xix. 19-21), or the leper after he was cleansed (Leviticus xiv. 8), the washing was always done with water ; the water was poured over the body, and not the body plunged into the water. Spiritual cleansing under the law was always repre- sented by SPRINKLING. Psalm li. 7: "Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean: wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." The purging with hyssop was always done by sprinkling by means of a bunch of hyssop. The washing was the result of the sprinkling; as the washing in Isaiah i. 5. Bzekiel xxxvi. 25 : "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean : from all your filthiness, and from all your idols, will I cleanse you." Here spiritual cleansing is represented by sprinkling. In the New Testament the real cleansing from sin in the blood of the Lamb is always represented as done by sprinkling. (Hebrews x. 22 ; First Peter i. 2 ; Hebrews xii. 34.) It is not at all probable that the Great Head of the Church would do the real cleansing from sin by sprink- ling, and then command us to represent it by plunging. 20 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. Reason demands that there should be harmony between the mode of the real and the figurative cleansing from sin. 6. The relation between the baptism of water and the baptism of the Holy Spirit demands that the mode should be the same. The baptism of water is the em- blem or symbol of the baptism of the Holy Spirit. The baptism of the Holy Spirit is always represented as being done by "pouring out," "falling on," "shedding forth," "coming upon"; never as a "plunging into, or an im- mersion." It is reasonable to suppose that our Lord would give us a mode for the symbolical baptism that would correspond with the mode of the real baptism which He himself performs on all believers, and by which all believers are put into the one body of Christ, and are made partakers of Him. (First Corinthians xii. 13.) The probability, to my mind, here rises to a certainty and settles the question in the introduction before we reach the argument. It does seem to me that, if the mind could divest itself of the prejudice of preconceived opinions, no other conclusion is possible. 7. But we may be asked, "Are not our immersionist friends honest in their convictions?" We answer: Most unquestionably they are. Nothing but loyalty to a con- viction to what they believe is a duty enjoined by the command of the Lord could influence men and women to submit to such a burden as immersion is in the coldest weather and with the certain knowledge that they are running so great a risk to their lives and health. Some of the noblest Christian men and women who have ever lived, and who are living to-day, conscientiously believe that the Lord Jesus enjoined this mode of baptism, and are willing to take every risk to do what they believe to be an act of obedience to His will. God accepts and blesses them for their loyalty to their convictions of duty, The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 21 notwithstanding their mistake in regard to the proper mode and design of baptism. He equally blesses those who as honestly believe that the pouring or sprinkling of water on the person, in token of purification from sin, is the divinely instituted baptism. This proves that the MODE of baptism is not essential to the ordinance, much less to the remission of sins. Why, then, the necessity of controversy on the sub- ject? If it were not for the consequences of the teachings of immersionists I would deem it not a matter of sufficient importance to merit controversy. But when we are told that Christ commanded the act of immersion as the only baptism, and that remission of sins can be obtained only in this act, and by others that this act alone admits us to the communion of the Church of God, and without it we cannot enter the visible Church, it becomes a question of vital importance. It ceases to be merely a question of mode and enters into the very essence of the gospel. It puts a yoke on the necks of Christ's disciples that many are not able to bear, as we have seen, and becomes a vital question of Christian liberty, and demands the most careful consideration and the most thorough investigation. The unaccountable and unsupported assumptions and assertions of many immersionist writers and debaters to fasten this yoke of bondage on the Church of Christ makes it imperatively necessary that these unsupported assumptions be met and shown to be groundless, and the truth be printed on this important question. As we have shown in the following pages, the claims of immersionists are extravagant and not sustained by facts. Take, as an example of this extravagance and reck- lessness, the position immersionists usually take on the meaning of the word haptidzo. They usually declare that all the lexicographers, commentators, critics, and scholars 22 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. are with them on the meaning of this word. Dr. Carson is an honorable exception, for he frankly admits that the lexicographers and commentators are all against him in regard to the meaning of this word. Dr. Carson was right, as we have shown in the following pages. There is not a lexicon on earth that agrees with them on the ''specific and univocal meaning, contended for by Car- son and Campbell. Take, as another illustration, their statements in re- gard to the facts of ecclesiastical history. Mr. Campbell in his debate with Dr. Rice, and Mr. Braden in his debate with me, expressly declared that in the early Church persons who had not been immersed were not permitted to be ordained to the ministry. This statement they made right in the face of the facts of history, as we have shown in the last chapter of this book. So great and general is this tendency on the part of controversial writers on that side of this controversy that for years I have been compelled to doubt every statement they make in regard to the meaning of words or the facts of ecclesiastical history touching the points of contro- versy. Such things are painful to state, and more painful because true. The case might be stated much stronger in some cases, as shown by Dr. Ditzler in regard to his ex- perience with Dr. Graves and others, as can be seen in his work on "Baptism." No good can be accomplished by such a course, and it is bound to react in the end against the cause it is advanced to support, and the advocates who resort to that method. Over-zealous controversialists on both sides are liable to be led into mistakes of this character, if they are not careful in following the statements of others, when they have not the facts at first hand. I have endeavored al- ways, both in oral discussion and in writing, to know the The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 23 truth in regard to every statement I make in regard to matters of criticism or to facts of history. I do not want to be mistaken myself, and I do not want to mislead anyone by any statement I may make. Truth is what we all ought to seek, and truth can never be sustained by falsehood. Baptism: Its Mode. CHAPTER I. The Position oi^ Immersionists. The position of our immersionist friends is, that baptism is the momentary immersion of the whole body under water, and the immediate emersion, or Ufting it out again. The emersion is just as essential to baptism as the IMMERSION. They claim that baptism is a burial and resurrection. The resurrection is just as essential as the burial; for with them baptism is designed to represent "the burial and resurrection of our Lord." Baptism would not be complete without the resurrection. This must be borne in mind throughout this discussion. If the word haptidzo expresses the action of baptism, then it must express both parts of the action — both the immer- sion and the emersion. To prove their claim of ex- clusive immersion they rely on the following points, or arguments : 1. The force and meaning of the word haptidzo, which they claim always means to dip, plunge, or im- merse ; never having any other meaning. 2. The force and meaning of the preposition eis (cis), which they claim, when used with verbs of motion, always means motion into a place, and never simply motion To a place. 2'4 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 25 3. The places where and the circumstances under which the baptisms of the New Testament took place. 4. The supposed allusions to immersion in Romans vi. 1-6 and Colossians ii. 12. 5. That baptism is called "a washing," which they say must therefore be an immersion. 6. "One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Bphesi- ans iv. 5.) 7. The practice of the primitive Church, which they claim was always by immersion. We purpose to show in the following pages that every one of these positions utterly fails to sustain their claims ; not one of them can they maintain. On the specific meaning of haptidzo they are at hope- less disagreement among themselves; and until they can reach an agreement among themselves as to the specific meaning of their own specific term, they should not ask us to accept their position. Let us look at a few of their efforts to agree on this important point. Dr. Alexander Carson, one of the most eminent and scholarly Baptist ministers of the last century, speak- ing of haptidzo, says: "My position is, that it always SIGNIFIES TO dip; NEVER EXPRESSING ANYTHING BUT MODE." (Carson on "Baptism," p. 56.) The capitals are his. Alexander Campbell says: "Baptize indicates a specific action, and, consequently, as such, can have but one meaning. For if a person or thing can be immersed in water, oil, milk, honey, sand, earth, debt, grief, afflic- tion, Spirit, light, or darkness, it is a word indicating specific action and specific action only." (Campbell on "Baptism," pp. 118-119.) What Mr. Campbell means by this specific action he tells us in his debate with Dr. Rice. He says: "Baptizo —3— 26 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. permits the subject to stay under the water but a very Httle time, and then emerge again. In the etymology and philology of the Greek language the word haptizo never can be shown to mean going to the bottom and staying there." He says: "It was a part of the sig- nificance of haptizo to emerge again, as well as to immerge, making it equal to katadusis and anadusis combined." Again he says: "My idea is that the dipping should not be done frequently, but that it indicated the rapidity with which the action was to be performed; that the thing should be done quickly, and for this reason the termina- tion zo is never used when the word is employed in con- nection with the business of dyers and tanners. But the word haptizo is always used to express the ordinance of baptism. This is the best reason I can give for the change in the termination into 20." ("Campbell and Rice De- bate," pp. 77-78.) Here it is plain that Mr. Campbell's specific action expressed by haptidzo is being put mo- mentarily under water and then raised out of it again. The radical root hap puts the person or thing under the water, while the termination zo brings him or it up again. Dr. GaIvE, an eminent Baptist writer of England in the last century, takes square issue with Mr. Campbell, and also with Dr. Carson, and says: "The word haptizo, perhaps, does so necessarily express the action of putting under water, as a thing in general being in that condition, no matter how it comes so, whether it is put into the water or the water comes over it." (Carson on "Bap- tism," p. 21.) Here the specific action claimed by Camp- bell and the mode contended for by Carson are totally re- pudiated, and the state or condition of "heing under is substituted for "mode" and "specific action." Prof. MoRRELiv takes square issue with Carson, and repudiates Campbell entirely, and goes even further than Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 27 Gale. He says: "That the word baptize uniformly sig- nifies to dip I will not venture to assert or undertake to prove. I believe, however, that it is generally admitted on both s'des that the word does mean to dip ; that this is its generic meaning, and its most usual meaning. But it appears quite evident that the word also bears the sense of covering by superfusion. This is admitted by Dr. Cox, who says: 'A person may be immersed by pouring, but immersion is the being plunged into water, or over- whelmed by it. Were the water to ascend from the earth, it would still be baptism were the person wholly covered by it.' Thus far we surrender the question of immersion, and in doing so we feel no small pleasure in finding our- selves in such good company as that of Dr. Cox." (Dale's "Classic Baptism," pp. 58-59.) Here are two eminent Baptist scholars who wholly surrender the specific meaning of haptidzo claimed by Carson and Campbell, and admit that a man may be im- mersed by SUPERFUSION— yea, that he may be baptized by POURING. How these eminent scholars agree upon the word on which they all rely to prove exclusive immersion ! Dr. Fuller agrees with Gale, Cox, and Morrell. He says: "My position is, that haptizo signifies to immerse, it matters not how the immersion is effected. Suppose a man should lie in the baptistery while it is filling: the pouring of the water would not be immersion, yet an im- mersion would take place if he remained long enough." (Dale's "Classic Baptism," p. 60.) Dr. Con ANT is perhaps the ablest writer on the side of immersion since the death of Dr. Carson. He says: "The word immerse, as well as its synonym immerge, etc., expresses the full import of haptizein. The idea of emer- sion is not included in the meaning of the Greek word. 28 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. It means simply, to put into or under water (or other substance), without determining whether the object im- mersed sinks to the bottom, or floats in the Hquid, or is immediately taken out. This is determined, not by the word itself, but by the nature of the case, and by the de- sign of the act in each particular case." (Conant's "Baptizein," pp. 88-89.) Conant here flatly contradicts Campbell in an essential element of the meaning of their specific word. He declares that baptidzo expresses but one half of the action of baptism — it has immersion in it, but no emersion; it has a burial in it, but no resurrection. Baptism, then, cannot represent the burial and res- urrection of Christ, because there is no resurrection in the word. This is a complete giving up of the claim that baptidzo expresses the mode or action of baptism. The mode or action for which immersionists contend is not in the word baptidzo. Conant is not alone in this position, as we have seen. Dr. Gale, Prof. Morrell, Dr. Cox, and Dr. Fuller, all eminent immersionist scholars, agree with him. If the word baptidzo does not express the mode or action of baptism, why this great fight on the meaning of this word? If the action expressed by baptidzo, when applied to Christian baptism, must be found outside the word itself, what force can the meaning of the word have in determining the mode or action of baptism? Our immersionist friends claim that baptism is nothing else but mode or action. If this be true, why did not our Lord select a word that specifically expressed that mode or action, and not one that expressed but one half of it and left us to infer the other half, or learn it from the circumstances in each individual case? Why did He not select a word which expressed the whole action ? The Greek language certainly had a word or words to express the whole action for which they contend. The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 29 Dupto expresses the very action for which they con- tend. Liddell and Scott define it "to duck, to dive." To duck and dive both mean a momentary immersion, followed by an immediate emersion, the very action our immersionist friends contend for; yet our Lord never used this word in connection with baptism. But when immersion became the practice among the Greeks, a word of this family was used always to express immersion, while haptidzo, or baptismos, was used to express the baptism. But we shall see this more fully further on. Why do our immersionist friends discard the English word dip, which comes from dupto, and means the very action which they call baptism, and take the Latin immerse, which, like baptidzo, according to Dr. Conant, expresses but half the action for which they contend? Immersion puts the ob- ject or person under the water, sinks him or it down, but it takes emersion to bring it or him up again. It takes the two words to express the one act which they call baptism. In immersion there is no resurrection. Conse- quently immersion cannot represent the resurrection of Christ. Emersion must come to the help of immersion to get a resurrection in baptism. Dr. Conant and those who agree with him have come to our side, and hold with us, that the word baptidzo alone does not express the action of baptism. Verily they have made some progress ! CHAPTER II. Our Position on the) Meaning of "Baptidzo." BapTidzo is not a -specific, but a generic word. It expresses a thing done, but not the manner of doing it; and hence the action or mode of baptism can never be de- termined by the word baptidzo. Dr. Dale, after exam- ining hundreds of examples where the word occurs in classic Greek, says: "A blind man could more readily select any demanded color from the spectrum, or a child could more readily thread the Cretan labyrinth, than could the seven wise men of Greece declare the nature or mode of any given baptism by the naked help of haptizo." (Dale's "Classic Baptism," pp. 353-354-) 'I'his is putting it pretty strong, but it is the conclusion of an eminent scholar, after a most laborious and painstaking examin- ation of the classical usage of the word. A vast amount of useless labor has been bestowed in this controversy on an effort to prove the original and etymological meaning of baptidzo, and yet we know that the original or etymological meaning of a word can de- termine nothing as to its meaning in any given period of its history; for all living languages are continually changing, and many times words by use take on meanings diametrically opposite to the original or etymological meaning. Dr. Carson says: "ijsE is the S01.E arbiter oi? language; and whatever is agreeable to this au- thority STANDS BEYOND IMPEACHMENT." (Carson on "Baptism," p. 46.) 30 Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 31 Dr. HiNTON, an eminent Baptist writer, in his "His- tory of Baptism," says: "It is manifest, however, that the meaning of a word in any given case is not to be de- termined by its original sense, but by its actual ordinary meaning in the language in which the author wrote and at the time of his writing. . . . In what sense did Christ and His apostles use the term baptize, and what did they design the disciples then and now to understand by it?" (Hinton's "History of Baptism," pp. 18-IQ.) Drs. Carson and Hinton are correct in the position here taken, as we shall see more fully as we proceed ; but still we will raise the question for a moment as to the original meaning of haptidzo. Upon this question the learned are divided; some holding that the radical, primary, and proper meaning of haptidzo and its root liapto is to dip, and their secondary meaning is to dye; while others hold that the radical, primary, and proper meaning of these words is to dye, while as secondary meanings they have to dip, to wash to wet, to moisten, to pour upon, to sprinkle; because dyeing may be done by all these methods. The position which we take is, that the original, primary, and proper meaning of these words was to dye, while as secondary meanings they embrace every mode of application by which it may be done, from the slightest distillation of the dew of heaven to the sinking of a ship to the bottom of the ocean. Dr. Timothy Dwight, who was so long president of Yale College and perhaps one of the most learned Biblical critics this country has ever produced, in speaking of the meaning of haptidzo and its root bapto, says: "Con- cerning the former of these subjects, I observe : i . That the body of learned critics and lexicographers declare that the original meaning of these words is to tinge, stain, dye , 32 Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. or color, and that when it means immersion it is only in a secondary and occasional sense, derived from the fact that such things as are dyed, stained, or colored are often im- mersed for this end. This interpretation of these words also they support by such a series of quotations as seem unanswerably to evince that this was the original, clas- sical meaning of these words." (Dwight's "Theology," Vol. IV., p. 345.) Dr. AivBKRT BarnKS, in his comment on Matthew iii. 6, says: "The word baptize signifies originally to tinge, to dye, to stain, as those who dye clothes." Dr. Carson gives a statement from Prof. Porson, one of the most eminent Greek scholars England ever pro- duced. It is in a quotation from a letter to a friend who visited Prof. Porson not long before his death. The writer of the letter says: "I inquired whether, in his opinion, baptize must be considered equal to bapto, which he said was to tinge, as dyers. He replied to this effect : that if there be a difference, he should take the former to be the strongest." (Carson on "Baptism," p. 23.) Here, you will observe, that eminent scholar says bapto means ''to tinge as dyers"; and "if there be a dif- ference" between it and baptidzo, he should take baptidzo "to be the strongest." He does not say that there is a difference, but ''if there should be a difference." This great scholar declares with Drs. Dwight and Barnes, that the original meaning of bapto and baptidzo is "to tinge as dyers." Dr. Richard Robinson, an eminent Baptist scholar and writer, in his "History of Baptism," says: "Baptize is a dyer's word, and signifies to dip so as to color. Such as render the word to dip give one idea, but the word stood for two, and one is wanting in this rendering The word then covers two ideas, the one literal dipping, The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 33 the other figurative coloring — a figure of a real fact; meaning that John by bathing persons in the river Jordan conferred a character, a moral hue, as dyers by dipping in a dyeing vat set a tinge or color.'' (Robinson's "His- tory of Baptism," pp. 7-8.) Dr. Robinson got a part of the truth, but only a part, as we shall see. Dr. Galk also says: "The Grecians very frequently apply the word in all its various forms to the dyer's art." That the original meaning of these terms was to dye, and not to dip, is demonstrated by the fact that the idea of to dye, stain, or color inheres in all the words of the family derived from the parent root bapto, while some of the words of this family are applied exclusively to the dyer's art, dropping the idea of dip entirely : as bapheon, a dyer's house; bapheus, a dyer; baphike, the art of dye- ing; bapsimos, to be dyed. So in Latin: baptes, frog-col- ored; bapt(E, the priests of the goddess Cotytto, because they stained their faces with paint, etc., etc. Here the idea of to dye inheres in all these words, while the idea of dip disappears entirely. When we come to examine the use of the term baptidzo, we will find many examples where the idea of dip or immerse is wholly out of the ques- tion, and this must forever settle the question of the pri- mary meaning of the root bapto. This radical meaning of the root of this word comes out fully in the Christian ordinance; for it imports a moral or spiritual tinge, hue, or color, that is the image of Christ stamped upon the soul; and thus does the radical meaning of the root of baptidzo harmonize with the sym- bolical import of the Christian ordinance, and this shows the beauty of selecting the term to give name to the in- itiatory rite of Christianity. CHAPTER III. "Bapto," the; Root of "Baptidzo," and the I^kxicons. Classical and Scriptural Usages. Though hapto, the root of haptidzo, is never used to express the Christian ordinance, yet Dr. Carson and Mr. Campbell both claim that in meaning they are identical as to mode. Dr. Carson contends that while it originally meant to dip, yet by use it came to mean to dye in any manner — to dye by sprinkling as well as by dipping. But when not used in the sense of to dye, it always means to dip. He says: "Except when it signifies to dye, it DENOTES MODE, AND NOTHING BUT MODE." The Capitals are his. (Carson on "Baptism," p. i8.) Dr. Gale holds that hapto and haptidzo are "exactly the same as to meaning." {Ibid., p. 19.) Mr. A. Camp- bell says: ''Baptizo, confessedly a derivative from hapto, derives its specific meaning, as well as its radical and im- mutable form, from that word." ("Christian Baptism," p. 119.) While Mr. Campbell admits, with Dr. Carson, that hapto has the secondary sen^e and figurative meaning to dye, yet he says: "In the radical and proper import, it is abundantly evident that they are isodunai, exactly the same as to signification." (Ibid., p. 130.) Indeed Mr. Campbell goes so far as to affirm that "wherever we find hap we find dip, either in fact or in figure." Had Drs. Carson and Gale and Mr. Campbell taken the position that the radical and primary meaning of the root hapto was to stain, dye, color, etc., and that as sec- 34 Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 35 ondary meanings it meant to wash, to moisten, to pour upon, to sprinkle, to dip, etc., as dyeing could be done in all these ways, they would have hit the truth, and would have been sustained by the lexicons and by the use of the Greek language ; and that haptidzo carried all these mean- ings of its root with it, they would have been right. But this would have spoiled their theory, and truth must be sacrificed to theory, not theory to truth! We have seen in Chapter II. the position of Dr. Dwight, Professor Porson, Albert Barnes, and Dr. Richard Robinson, the great Baptist historian of baptism, that the radical and primary meaning of hapto was to tinge, to stain, to dye, or color. And that Dr. Dwight tells us this is the testimony of the learned world. Now, is the position of these learned men sustained by the facts in the case? Let us look at the lexicons a moment. The following lexicons and grammarians I quote from Dr. DiTzler, by permission. He is always accurate and reliable. ^ "i. Stokius: Bapto, tingo, moisten, stain." "2. Cyrilli Philexeni Glossaria: Bapto, to stain, moisten, imbue, wet." "3. Faciolatus and Forcellini give hapto as the synonym of tingo, to moisten, wet." "4. Andrews' Latin Lexicon : 5a/) ^^, painters." "5. Anthon's Classical Dictionary: Baptoe, the priests of Cotytto. The name is derived from BaTTTw, to tinge or dye, from their painting their cheeks and staining the parts around the eyes like women." "6. Kuhner's Greek Grammar: Section 143, p. 173: BttTTTco, hapto, to tinge." "7. Dalzel, Grgeci Majorum: BaTrrw, hapto {thigo), tinge." 36 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. "8. Ursinus' Greek Lexicon: To stain, to dye, to wash, or cleanse (abluo), to sprinkle (as per go)." "lo. Gazes: Bapto, to cast or thrust down. To stain, to dye, and to sink. To pour anything into or on anything. ... To shed forth, to wash, to wash the hands, etc." "ii. Kouma, almost the same as Gazes, has brecho, shed forth, or sprinkle, wash, etc." "i2. Stephanus, favoring immersion, gives paint ifuco), stain, moisten, imbue, as by far the most prevalent meaning, and pour upon." In a foot-note he gives us the following : "Superfusa, this being by the great editor, Valpy. Buddaeus, the older lexicographer, and ancient glosses do the same — give stain, paint, moisten, imbue, as the prevailing use of bapto." (Ditzler on "Baptism," pp. 106-107.) This learned author calls attention to the fact so ob- vious to all thinking men, that the primary meaning of a word cannot be learned from its current use five hundred or a thousand years after it appears in a language, but from its use when it first appears. The first appearance of bapto in the Greek language is in Homer, a thousand years before Christ. It unquestionably means to tinge, to stain, in this first appearance. The mode of this tinge- ing was by the tiniest kind of sprinkling. It is in Ho- mer's battle of frogs and mice. Speaking of a frog that was slain, he says: "He fell without even looking up- ward and (ebapteto d' aimati limne) the lake was tinged with blood." Here we have bap; but where is the dip9 in fact or in figure? Dr. Carson, on page 29 of his work on "Baptism," thought he had found a case in Homer's "Odyssey" where bapto means to dip. He says: "Homer employs the word in the 'Odyssey' in such a situation where the The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 37 meaning cannot be doubted. He compares the hissing of the eye of Polyphemus, when bored by a red-hot stake, to the hissing of the water when a smith dips his iron in order to temper it. * As when the smith an hatchet or huge axe, tempering with skill, Plunges the hissing blade deep in cold water, whence the strength of steel.' — Cowper. No one who has seen the horse shod will be at a loss to know the mode of the application of water in this in- stance. The immersion of the newly formed shoe in the water, in order to harden the metal, is expressed by bap- tein." Dr. Carson has missed the idea of the poet en- tirely. It is not a horseshoe of iron that is being tem- pered, but the steel blade of a hatchet or huge pole-axe, which is a totally different process. Dr. DiTzivER remarks on this case : "2. 'Odyssey,' I., 302: 'As when a smith tempers (baptei) a hatchet or huge pole-axe 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-axe or hatchet. The edge is sHghtly dipped. But from the context this does not seem to have been the allusion. It was more likely the well-known process of putting some cold water on the anvil, placing the axe or hatchet on it, and striking a blow with the hammer, which makes an explosion or report louder than an ordinary gun. This is done constantly in tempering axes and hatchets. "i. 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 the first known Greek author. 38 Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. "The well-known Greek author, ^schylus, born B. C. 520, uses it to express the staining of a sword by slaughter ; and staining of clothes by the blood of the victim spurting upon them. "i. 'For the wife has deprived each husband of life, staining {haps as a) the sword by slaughter.' The sword is not immersed in the blood of the victim ; but the blood flows from the wound inflicted by it, and (bapsasa) stains it. "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 affuses the garment, staining it, and witnesses of the violent death of the victim. "3. Here again, in the next writer we have after Homer who uses bapto, bapto is used for a clear case of affusion. "4. Aristophanes, born B. C. 450. He uses bapto more frequently. "(i) Speaking of Magnes, an old comic writer of Athens, 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 variegated appearance, colored (bapton) at great cost.' Here the colors seem to 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, to Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 39 precious stones of beautiful colors, etc. Hence Aris- tophanes — "(3) Ornis baptos, 'a colored bird.' * * (a) Dipping, plunging, is out of the question here. "(6) The variegated plumage was bapted thus as it grew. "Thus bapto applies where no mode is specially in- volved, 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 condition. The birds and stones were bapted by these delicate affusions and infusions. Hence Greeks, Hebrews, and 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' (bomma). Here bapto occurs twice in its different 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 would stain his face. "(c) Clearly enough the bapto here bapted the object by affusion. "6. Hippocrates, born B. C. 430. This noted Greek, quoted by Carson (Baptist), says of a dyeing sub- stance, 'when it drops (epitaxae) upon the garments, they are stained (baptetai), dyed.' Notice now — "i. We have had no case where a complete en- velopment even for a moment has been effected by bapto from Homer to Hippocrates "We have now gone over the period from Homer to Plato, who comes next. In all these periods of six hun- 40 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. dred years, among the most illustrious writers Greece ever produced, we find the following exhibit: "i. Not once does bapto 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. In no instance does it apply to or describe the act performed by Baptists when they baptize. "5. It frequently applies to the mode of those who baptize by affusion, and to the exact mode, effusion, as- persion, though not any single exclusive mode, and the application in any decent mode is what we require in baptism. "6. The prevailing action or mode involved in bapto as yet is aspersion, effusion, affusion. "7. The primary force of the word is aspersion." "Bapto" from Plato to Aristotle, etc. "i. Plato, born B. C. 400, 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 of- fensive and opprobrious epithets applied to him by a comedian in the play called 'Baptce,' says: 'You as- pers-^d (baptes) me [with the abusive epithets] in your play.' "i. Here bapto is used by both parties — the one calling his play 'Baptce,' in a metaphorical sense, applying bapto to speech. "2. All metaphorical use is based on a prior Hteral use of words, as no one will question. ' ' (3) In Greek, as we 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 common English phrase. 'Pour abuse upon' is another. We The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, 41 never say that we 'dip a man in abuse/ 'plunge him into abuse.' "Here is, therefore, a clear use of bapto by both parties, and by Greek comedians generally, that shows sprinkle to be the primary meaning of bapto. And the writer uses the words 'streams more bitter' as the means with which he, in a volley of words, would baptize him, not merely bapt him. "3. The great Aristotle, born B. C. 384, comes next in chronological order as using the word. He uses the word where there is a partial dip, and where also objects are colored, and where dyeing is by dipping. Then also thus, speaking of a dyeing substance: 'Being pressed, it moistens (baptei) and dyes (anthidzei) the hand.' "i. 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 moistens the hand. "(5) The effect of its being coloring matter that was pressed was to dye or stain the hand ; and bapto does not express that, but anthidzo does, which primarily ap- plies 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 (bap- tais) colored 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 writers of this period speak on this wise: Plutarch, VI., p. 680: 'Then perceiving 42 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. that his beard was colored (baptomenon) and his head.' ^Han: 'The Indians dyed {baptontai) their beards.' Marcus Antonius speaks of the soul tinged (baptetai) by the thoughts: 'Tinge (bapto) it then by accustoming yourself to such thoughts.' "Here still bapto continues to be used where — "i. There is no dip, plunge, and immerse is never a meaning of the word. "2. It is applied where the coloring matter is ap- plied to 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." (Ditzler on "Baptism," pp. 113 to 122.) We have quoted so largely from Dr. Ditzler's incom- parable book because he has furnished the examples in which bapto occurs from its first appearance in Homer, a thousand years before Christ, in chronological order to Plutarch and Marcus Antom'nus, A. D. 150. This clearly proves, beyond reasonable controversy, that the primary meaning of bapto was to tinge, to stain, to dye, to color, and that the prevailing mode by which this was done was by affusion or aspersion, and not dipping, or immersion, and that these meanings are secondary, taken on later in its history, because things are sometimes dipped or immersed for the purpose of dyeing or coloring them. I am sorry that I am compelled to differ from my distinguished friend and brother Dr. Ditzler on the pri- mary meaning of bapto. His position, that it primarily means to sprinkle, I do not think is sustained by his ex- amples, and yet the prevailing mode of the staining, dyeing, etc., was unquestionably by sprinkling or affusion; The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 43 but hapto and its derivative haptidzo are not words of mode, but of denomination — they express a thing done, not the manner of doing it ; that must be learned outside the words, and is not embraced in them. In this first occurrence of hapto it expresses the shghtest tingeing of the lake with the blood of the frog, as it spurted from the wound upon the surface of the lake. The mode of this tingeing was sprinkling, but that was not expressed by hapto. This is fully brought out in the example from Hippocrates, where he says: "When it drops (epitaxae) upon the garments, they are dyed, or stained." Here hapto expresses the thing done — the staining, coloring, or dyeing; but epitaxae, to drop, expresses the mode of doing it. Numerous other examples show the same thing, which clearly proves to my mind that hapto is not a word of mode, but of denomination. Let us now examine some of Dr. Carson's examples from classical use. Remember, he says: "As expressive of mode, the derivative cannot go beyond its primitive. As to totality of immersion, the one is perfectly equiv- alent to the other." (Carson on "Baptism," p. 23.) A number of his examples are taken from the pre- scriptions of Hippocrates, and do not have reference to mode at all. Take the following examples: "Having dipped {hapto) a piece of linen into soft Eretrian earth, well pounded and warm, cover the breast round with it." It is evident that there was no dipping or immersion in this case ; the idea of dip was not in the physician's mind. The soft Eretrian earth was to be spead upon the linen cloth — the cloth could not be dipped into it. "Dip- ping [the plaster] into the oil of roses." No physician ever prescribed a blister-plaster to be dipped into any thing before applying. The plaster was to be moistened by spreading the oil of roses over its surface before 44 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, being applied; and this is expressed by bapto. Dip is clearly out of the question here. Speaking of a certain mixture, he says: "After this, having dipped it into the oil of roses, or Egyptian oil, let it be applied during the day." This is the celebrated bhster-plaster, which we will more fully discuss when we come to the meaning of haptidzo. Surely there was no dip or immerse here. As in the former case, the oil was applied to the surface of the plaster before being applied. No sane man, it seems to us, could ever suppose that a physician would prescribe the immersion of a blister-plaster in oil before applying. Nearly all of Dr. Carson's examples are like these, or refer to moistening things before applying, or moistening things before eating them ; yet in every case he translates hapto to dip ! In all such examples the idea of immersion is utterly out of the question. This shows us how hard pressed Dr. Carson was to find authority for immersion in the word hapto. Scriptural Examples of the Use of ''Bapto.'' Dr. Carson's examples from Scriptures of the use of hapto fail as utterly to sustain his position as his examples from classical use. His first example is Exodus xii. 12: "And ye shall take a bunch of hyssop, and dip it in the blood that is in the basin, " etc. Here is no immersion of the bunch of hyssop dipped in the blood. The end or top of the bunch of hyssop was partially dipped, but the bunch was not immersed. To partially dip an object for the purpose of sprinkling, as in this case, and to dip in the sense of im- mersion are certainly not the same kind of a dip, and the one cannot be pleaded as authority for the other. His next three examples (Leviticus iv. 6 and 17 and ix. 9) are of the priest dipping his finger in blood for the purpose The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 45 of sprinkling it. This is but a partial dipping of the finger ; there is no immersion in any of these cases. Another example is Leviticus xiv. 16: "The priest shall dip his right finger in the oil that is in his left hand, and shall sprinkle of the oil with his finger seven times before the Lord." There is surely no dipping in the sense of immersion here, for immersion was out of the question. In this passage there is no dipping m, but a dipping from; apo is used here in the Septuagint, and not en. The finger was moistened from or by means of the oil, and not im- mersed in it, for that would have been impossible. Here bapto means to moisten or besmear the finger for the pur- pose of sprinkling. All such examples are against im- mersion, and are on our side. Here are some more of Dr. Carson's examples: Deuteronomy xxxiii. 24: "Let him dip his foot in oil." Psalm Ixviii. 23: "That thy feet may be dipped in the blood of thine enemies, and the tongue of thy dogs in the same." Here there is no immersion. The foot was not immersed "in oil," nor were the feet immersed "in blood," much less "the tongue of the dogs." A dog never immerses his tongue when he laps up either water or blood. There could be no possible immersion in this case, yet bapto is used to express the act of a dog lapping up blood. Ruth ii. 14 : " Dip thy morsel in the vinegar." Surely no one will contend that bapto here means to im- merse. Yet Dr. Carson, the ablest writer on the side of immersion, produces these examples to prove that bapto always means to dip, in the sense of immerse, where it does not mean to dye. If bapto, then, as to mode, expresses a partial dipping, or moistening of the surface, as we have shown from Dr. Carson's own examples, both from the classical and the Scriptural use of the word, then baptidzo cannot go beyond 46 The .Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. it as to mode, and consequently it may and often does mean a partial dipping, wetting, or moistening of the surface. Dr. Carson says on Job ix. 31: "What our trans- lators render, 'Yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch,* etc., in the Greek is, 'Thou hast dipped me deeply in filth.'" The Greek reads: "iKavois ev pviria fie e/Jai/^as, ifSSiXv^aTo Si fie ^ (TToXrj.'' This may be properly trans- lated, "Thou hast besmeared me with filth, and my own clothes abhor me." There is no word in the passage sig- nifying "deeply," and hence Dr. Carson had no authority to translate it , " Thou hast dipped me deeply in filth. ' ' The connection shows that it was the hands that were defiled with filth, and not clothes. In verses 30 and 31 (the common version) we read: "If I wash myself with snow water, and make my hands never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes shall abhor me." The hands were "washed with snow water." It was the hands that were again made foul. Rupoo means filthy or to make foul or filthy. There is neither plunge nor ditch in the passage. Our common version is very faulty, and Dr. Carson's is more so. The hands which had been made clean were made foul again by besmearing them with filth. This is further con- firmed by the latter clause of verse 31, "mine own clothes shall abhor me." Had he been plunged in the ditch of filth, his clothes would have been defiled, or befouled, and they could not have been said to "abhor" him, but he would have "abhorred" them — they would have been the objects defiled. But it was the person that was defiled or befouled, and not the clothes. The clean clothes "ab- horred" the filthy person. This demonstrates the fact that it was the hands which had been made clean that were made foul again, and that this befouling of the hands The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 47 was a bapting of the person. Here bapto can mean only a besmearing of the hands. There is no dip or immerse in this case. It must be given up by immersionists. We will take one more example from the Old Tes- tament — Daniel iv. 33 and v. 21. We have bapto used in both places. The exact language as used in the Sep- tuagint is : * * koI aTrb t^? Spocrov Tov ovpavov to (TOifxa avTOv i/Sdrj." The literal and exact translation of this pass- age is: "And from the dew of heaven his body was wet," or "sprinkled." There is no possible chance of dip or immerse here ; his body was not bapted into (eis) or in (en) the dew of heaven, but from (apo) the dew of heaven. This bapting was done with simple water — the dew falling upon his body from heaven. Bapto does not mean here * * to dye , ' ' neither does it mean ' ' to dip " ; i t means ' * to wet ' ' — but the mode is sprinkling. It will not do to parade the copious dews of the valley of the Euphrates, as our immersionist friends do, until the body of the king was as wet as if it had been im- mersed; for Dr. Carson tells us bapto does not mean "to wet any more than it does to dry.'' He says: "When it does not mean dye, it means modb, and nothing but MODE." It does not mean "to dye" here, and conse- quently it must mean mode, Dr. Carson being judge; and that MODE is not immersion, but the lightest kind of SPRINKLING — the distilling of the dew of heaven upon the body of the king. Now, if bapto means "to sprinkle," as it unquestionably does here, and bapto and baptidzo are ex- actly equivalent as to mode, then baptidzo means "to sprinkle," and our contention is proven to be true. Bapto is used six times in the New Testament: three times it is simple bapto (John xiii. 26; lyuke xvi. 24; Rev- elation xix. 13), and embapto three times (Matthew xxvi. 23; Mark xiv. 29; John xiii. 46). Four of these passages 48 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. refer to the same thing — the dipping in the dish with Jesus, and it does not mean "immerse" in any of these examples, but only a slight contact of the morsel with the fluid in the dish, just as we dip bread in gravy; and they are squarely against the idea of immersion, and the meaning of both embapto and bapto in all these examples is that of moistening the morsel preparatory to eating. In Luke it is, "dip the tip of his finger in water." Here again we have only a slight touch. In Revelation xix. 13 it means to sprinkle the gar- ments of the conquering Lord with the blood of His en- emies spurting from their wounds on His garments. There are three readings of this passage that have come down to us from the early Christian centuries : * ' bebam- menon'' from bapto, in the commonly received text; ''per- irerammenon," from raino, in the Sinaitic; and ''eran- tismenon," from rantidzo, in Origen's text. Wescott and Hort follow Origen's text, and put in ''erantismenon." These three words are used in different manuscripts and by different Greek writers to express the same thing. There is no controversy about the meaning of raino and rantidzo; all admit that they mean "to sprinkle" ; and we have proved beyond controversy that bapto has this meaning. These are interchangeable words, used by the Greek fathers to express the same thing. Irenaeus, a celebrated Greek father of the second cent- ury, Bishop of Lyons, born but a few years after the death of the Apostle John, and a disciple of the noted Polycarp, quotes Revelation xix. 13, "where it is bapto bebamme- non, and translates it, 'And He was clothed with a vest- ure SPRINKLED with blood.' " (Ditzler on "Baptism," p. 124.) The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 49 Origen, as we have seen, about A. D. 250, the most learned of the Greek fathers, uses rantidzo (erantismenon) instead of bebammenon, sprinklKd with blood. "Hyppol3rtus, the learned Greek archbishop, A. D. 220, copies the common reading of Revelation xix. 13, bapto, thus: 'And he was clothed with a vesture bebam- menon bapted,' in our version 'dipped in blood' ; and adds: 'See, brethren, how the vesture, sprinkled with blood, denoted,' " etc. (Ibid.) Now, we ask, did these eminent Greek fathers, un- derstand their own language? If they did, then bapto means to sprinkle. The ancient versions usually translate bapto, in Rev- elation xix. 13, i'/'rm^/g. " I . 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 bapto here by sprinkle (aspersa) . "3. The Coptic (third century A. D.) translates it sprinkle. "4. The Basmuric renders it sprinkle. "5. The Sahidic (second century A. D.) renders it sprinkle. "6. The Bthiopic (fourth century A. D.) renders it sprinkle. "7. The Lutheran (sixteenth century) renders it sprinkle (bespringt). "8. The lyusitanian has it sprinkle (salpacado) ." (Ibid.) We have spent so much time and pains on the meaning of bapto because the leading immersionist writers, such as Gale, Carson, and Campbell, tell us that as to 50 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. mode, where bapto does not mean to dye, it and haptidzo are exactly synonymous. Before we have reached hap- tidzo we have proved that it means to moisten, to pour upon, to sprinkle. Gale, Carson, and Campbell being judges. CHAPTER IV. ' ' Baptidzo " — Thk Lexicons. It is a very common thing to hear the advocates of immersion affirm that all the lexicographers, critics, and scholars agree with them as to the meaning of baptidzo. Nothing could be farther from the truth ; and some of the ablest and most conscientious writers on that side admit that the lexicographers and scholars are all against them. Dr. Alexander Carson, one of the very ablest and most conscientious writers on the side of immersion, says : "My position is. That it always signifies to dip; never expressing anything but mode." [The capitals are his.] "Now, as I have all the lexicographers and com- mentators against me in this opinion, it will be necessary for me to say a word or two with respect to the authority of lexicons. Many may be startled at the idea of re- fusing to submit to the unanimous authority of lexicons, as an instance of the boldest skepticism. 'Are lexicons,' it may be said, *of no authority?' Now, I admit that lexicons are an authority, but they are not an ultimate authority. Lexicographers have been guided by their judgment in examining the various passages in which a word occurs, and it is still competent for any man to have recourse to the same source. The meaning of a word must ultimately be determined by an actual inspection of the passages in which it occurs, as often as any one chooses to dispute the judgment of the lexicographer. The use of a word, as it occurs in the writers of authority 51 52 The Scripturcd Mode of Christian Baptism. in the English language, is an appeal that any man is en- titled to make against the decision of Dr. Johnson him- self. The practice of a language is the House of Lords, which is competent to revise the decisions of all dic- tionaries." (Carson on "Baptism," pp. 56-57.) lyCt not any immersionists after this come forward and tell us that all the lexicographers, commentators, scholars, and critics are on their side. This greatest of immersionist writers declares Th^y are all against him. And he appeals to "the House of Lords," "the supreme court of language — USE," which he declares is "the sole arbiter of language," against "The unanimous" authority of the lexicons. Is this statement of Dr. Carson true, that "all lex- icographers and commentators" are against him? It un- questionably is, and Dr. Carson was too honest and too scholarly to deny it. I want to call attention to some facts in regard to the lexicons. 1. It is a fact that no lexicon on earth gives the single and alone definition to haptidzo of to dip, plunge, or immerse. Not one of them defines it to mean alone to put under water momentarily and immediately withdraw, or lift up again, which is the specific action or mode of baptism for which immersionists contend. 2. All the old lexicographers, from Robert Stephens down, who give their definitions in Latin, give lavo as one of the definitions of haptidzo. If there is an exception to this, I have never found it. Now we know that the modal meaning of lavo is to besprinkle; hence, every one of these old lexicographers gives "to besprinkle" as one of the definitions of haptidzo. 3. Two of the best modern Greek lexicographers, Gazes and Kouma, give, among the first definitions of haptidzo, "Brecho, to rain, to pour upon, to sprinkle." The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 53 • 4. Many of the best modern German lexicographers and scholars give "to sprinkle," or "to pour upon," as definitions of baptidzo; many of them giving these among the first definitions of this word. 5. The New Testament lexicons usually give "to wash" as the first meaning of baptidzo, and "to dip or immerse" as secondary meanings. Immersionists, to get rid of the force of this latter fact, try to make it appear that this is claimed to be a sacred or Scriptural sense that the word does not have in common use among the He- brews. But this is a great mistake. It was the ordinary use among the Jews of the word for three hundred years before the coming of Christ, and up to that time. It is to this ordinary use of the word among the Jews to which we appeal as the proper meaning of the word in the New Testament as the only safe rule of interpretation. But we will discuss this question more fully in another chapter. In confirmation of the statements here made, we will quote from a number of lexicons : 1 . " Stkphanus (Robert Stephens, 1572) defines bap- tidzo thus: 'Mergo, sen immergo, ut quce tingendi aut abluendi gratia aqua immergimus : Mergo, submergo, obruo aqua; abluo, lavo.' 'To dip, immerse, as we immerse things for the purpose of coloring or washing them; to merge, submerge, to cover with water; to cleanse, to wash.' " 2. "Scapula thus defines the word baptizo: 'Mer- go, seu immergo — Item tingo: ut quce tingendi; aut abluendi gratia aqua immergimus. Item mergo, submergo, obruo aquea: — Item abluo, lavo. (Mark 7; Luke 11.)' 'To dip or immerse — also to dye, as we immerse things for the purpose of coloring or washing them; also to plunge, submerge, to cover with water; also to cleanse, to wash. (Mark 7; Luke 11.)'" 54 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, 3. "HedERICUS thus defines baptize: 'Mergo, im- mergo, aqua abruo; (2) abluo, lava; (3) baptizo, significatu sacro.' 'To dip, immerse, to cover with water; (2) to cleanse; (3) to baptize in a sacred sense.'" 4. "SCHLKUSNER defines baptizo not only to plunge, immerse, but to cleanse, wash, to purify with water; {abluo, lava, aqua purgo.) " 5. "BrETSCHNHidEr: 'Proprice, septus intingo, se- pius lava; deinde (i) lava, abluo, simpliciter; medium, etc., lavo me, abluo me.' 'Properly, often to dip, often to wash; then (i) simply to wash, to cleanse; in the middle voice, I wash or cleanse myself.' " 6. "SuiDAS defines baptizo not only to sink, plunge, immerse, but to wet, wash, cleanse, purify, etc.; (made- facio, lavo, abluo, purgo, mundo.)" These we have taken from "Campbell and Rice Debate," p. 69. 7. ScHREVEUUS defines it: "Baptizo, mergo, lavo," "To baptize, to immerse, to wash." I wish to call special attention to Bretschneider, one of the very best, who gives lavo as one of the first mean- ings of baptidzo, "Properly, often to dip, often to wash." But this is not all; he adds, "then simply to wash." Now I want to call particular attention to the two most noted modern Greek lexicographers, and I want to call attention to their definitions of baptidzo: 8. "Gazes: 'Baptidzo: To put frequently any thing into any thing, and thence upon it; to shed forth anything; 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. (4) Among Christians, to baptize.' " (Ditzler on "Baptism," pp. 152-153.) In a foot-note Dr. Ditzler says: The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 55 "Gazes was a native of Melias, Thessaly. He was educated at Venice, traveled over Europe ; was one of the most learned of Greeks ; was a member of the commit- tee that framed and signed the Declaration of Grecian Independence. He put forth his lexicon, founded on Schneider's, with changes and improvements, at Venice, three volumes quarto, which the learned Hilarion fol- lowed, who, with the approval of his archbishop, revised the translation of the Bible by the British and Foreign Bible Society." {Ibid., p. 153.) Here is the definition in full : " BaTrTt'^a) M. o-w {/Sa-n-Toi). Sivyva /SovtC) tl /xecra ets tl kol ivrevOcv dva tov. Bpe^co rt TTOTt^to, CTTt^wcOj Xovoi. 2. AvtXw ^ovto) €is TO vcpov ayyciov TL Slo. vol iK^aWo). 3. ttXvvo) Tois ;^€tpaSj r] Xovofiai. 4. Bair- Tiio) Trapa x/^to^'^tct.^ot?, " etc. 9. "KouMA, a native Greek of the [last] century, the lexicon written at great length in modern Greek: 'Baptidzo, from bapto, to sink, to put frequently into water; to besprinkle; shed forth (or sprinkle). 2. To draw or pump water. 3. In an ecclesiastical sense, to baptize.' " {Ibid., p. 141.) Here is his defmition: " BaTrrt^w M. t'o-w ck tov ySaTTTco; /8v Oiiu) ^VTO) avxvf^Ki'i et? Ipov^ KaTaf3pc)((D^ (3pc)^o). 2. AvtA-W. 3. BaTTTt'^o) ckkAt;?. S." Here the reader will observe that both these great modern Greek lexicographers put brecho in their defini- tions, which means "to rain, to sprinkle," etc.; while Gazes puts in also epichuno, "to pour upon," and ekballoo, "to throw out or on." Now let us turn to the great modern German lex- icographers, and see what they have to say as to the meaning of baptidzo : 10. "SwARZius, who wrote a large lexicon of very high standing, thus defines baptidzo: 'Baptidzo: To 56 The Scrifhiral Mode of Christian Baptism. baptize, immerse, to overwhelm, to dip into, to wash by immersing. Sometimes to sprinkle, to besprinkle, to pour upon,' etc." 11. "SuicER, whom Dr. Smith thinks the best lex- icon ever prepared for the interpretation of the New Testament words, sums up his remarks on the meaning of haptidzo thus: 'Then the thing signified is repre- sented by immersion or sprinkling.' " 12. "ScHNBiDER, the next best classic lexicon, is- sued at Leibzig, 1819 : 'Baptidzo, from bapto, I dip under; thence as brecho [i, e., moisten, shed forth, sprinkle]. Also, metaphorically, to be thoroughly drunk, over- whelmed with debts, etc. [classics given]; ... to wash,' etc." 13. "WoLFius: 'This word [baptidzo, Luke xi. 38] means washing done by sprinkling.' " 14. "Passow: The great Passow, the master crit- ic of all classic lexicons, to whom Liddell and 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 containing eighteen hundred and eighty-four double-column pages, fine print. He thus deposes : 'Bap- tidzo, from bapto. (i) Oft and repeatedly to immerse, sub- merse, with eis [into] and^ pros ti, in respect to any thing. . . . . Thence to moisten, to wet, to sprinkle; hoi bebaptismenoi, translate, made drunk, vino madidi [Latin, soaked with wine]. GenErai.ly to besprinkle, to pour UPON, to overwhelm, to burden with taxes, with debts (oppress), to confuse with questions. (2) Pump water. (3) Baptize, suffer oneself to be baptized ; also to bathe, to wash.' " 15. "RosT and Palm, in three volumes, the latest save Pape: 'Baptidzo: Oft and repeatedly to immerse, to submerse. ... To moisten, to wet, to sprinkle, The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 57 made drunk, vino madidi. Generally to besprinkle, TO POUR UPON, to overwhelm, to burden with taxes, with debts, to oppress. (2) Draw (or pump) water. (3) To baptize, to suffer oneself to be baptized; also to bathe, to wash.' " 16. "Pape: 'Baptidzo: To immerse, to submerse, Plutarch [extracts and renderings given to sustain this all from the late Greek]; to moisten [or wet,] to besprin- kle [or POUR UPON, to besprinkle] ; {hoi hebaptismenoi) those drunk. Plato. To overwhelm with debts, Plutarch. (2) To draw water [out of any thing], etc. (3) In the New Testament and ecclesiastical historians, to baptize. Middle voice, to suffer oneself to be baptized. Baptisma, the baptism, in the New Testament.' " These modern German lexicons I have, by permis- sion, taken from Dr. Ditzler's incomparable work on ''Baptism," pp. 157, 158, 159, 160, 161. Let no immersionist ever affirm again, that no standard lexicon ever gave "to sprinkle," or "to pour UPON," as definitions of baptidzo. Here we have six of the old lexicographers, Stephens, Scapula, Hederi- cus, Bretschneider, and Schrevelius, all giving lavo as a meaning of baptidzo, and all the other old lexicographers not quoted do the same. The modal action of lavo is to besprinkle. Bretschneider, one of the very best, de- fines it: "Properly, often to dip, often to wash, (lavo) to besprinkle; then (i) simply to wash, (lavo, abluo) BESPRINKLE, CLEANSE)." 2. These old lexicographers all refer to the New Testament, where it means lavo and abluo — to wash, cleanse, besprinklE. 3. These two eminent modern Greek lexicographers put brecho, "to rain, to sprinkle," among the first definitions of bap- tidzo. 4. Four of these great modern German lexicog- raphers give "to sprinkle" along with "dip" or "immerse" —5— 58 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. as a first meaning of baptidzo. In the light of these unde- niable facts, well may we ask, What becomes of the oft- repeated statement of immersionists, that no standard LEXICON ever defined baptidzo "to sprinkle" or "to pour upon"? But we have a few more lexicons that we wish to introduce : 17. Greenfield, who thus defines baptidzo: "To immerse, immerge, submerge, sink; in New Testament to wash, to perform ablution, cleanse. (Mark 7:4; Luke 11:38.)" 18. Parkhurst: ''Baptidzo: To dip, immerse, or plunge in water ; but in the New Testament it occurs not strictly in this sense, unless so far as this is included in sense II. and III. below: "II. Baptizomai: Mid. and Pass. To wash one's self, to be washed, etc. "III. To baptize, to immerse in, or wash with water in token of purification from sin, and from spiritual pollution. "IV. To baptize, as the Israelites were into Moses in the cloud and in the sea. Occ. i Corinthians x. 2; where probably the true reading is ebaptisthesen, as almost all the ancient and some of the later MSS. read, . . . 'They were baptized [not "unto," as our English version has it, but] into Moses' — i. e., into that covenant, and into obedience to those laws, which Moses delivered to them from God. "V. In a figurative sense, to baptize with the Holy Ghost. It denotes the miraculous effusion of the Holy Ghost upon the apostles and other believers, as well on account of the abundance of His gifts (for anciently the water was copiously poured on those who were bap- tized, or they themselves were plunged therein) as of the The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 59 virtue and efficacy of the Holy Spirit, who like living water refresheth, washeth away pollutions, cleanseth, etc. (Stokius; Matthew iii. 11; Mark i. 8; Luke iii. 16; John i. 33; Acts i. 5, ix. 16; I Corinthians xii. 13.)" 19. Pickering thus defines haptidzo: "To dip, im- merse, submerge, plunge, sink, overwhelm; to steep, to soak, to wet; mid., to wash one's self or bathe, etc. In New Testament, to wash, to cleanse by washing, to per- form ablution; as in Mark vii. 4, where it is used as equivalent to vuf/ovrai (nipsoontai) in verse 3, and as opposed to avLTTTos (aniptos), unwashed, inverse 2; to baptize, or perform the rite of baptism." Now note that this standard Greek lexicon tells us that in the New Testament it means "to wash, to cleanse by washing, to perform ablutions" ; and that it is "equiv- alent to nipto" in Mark vii. 3. We know nipto means to wash the hands in Mark vii. 3, by pouring the water upon them; which was the uniform custom of the washing of hands, as we shall see later on. If haptidzo in Mark vii. 4 is equivalent to nipto in Mark vii. 3, then haptidzo means "to POUR UPON." So, then, this standard lexicon gives us the New Testament meaning of haptidzo — "to wash" by POURING water on the subject, and not by plunging the subject into it. 20. Groves: "To dip, immerse, immerge, plunge; to wash, cleanse, purify; to baptize, etc." He thus de- fines haptisma: "Washing, ablution; purification; bap- tism; the Christian doctrine; depth of affliction or dis- tress." 21. Edward Robinson defines haptidzo "to sub- merse, sink," and then he quotes from Polybius and Diodorus Siculus, both later Greek writers, to confirm this classical meaning, and then says: "In New Tes- 6o The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. lament translation, (i) to wash, to perform ablution, cleanse. (Mark 7 : 4.) " 22. Prof. W. J. HiCKiE, whose lexicon is bound with Wescott and Hort's Greek Testament, thus giving it the endorsement of these great scholars and critics, thus de- fines this word: "Baptidzo: To wash, cleanse, to bap- tize (Mark i. 5; John i. 25, 28); pass., to wash (Luke xi. 38); mid., to receive baptism (Acts xxi. 16). Bap- tisma: To baptize (Matthew iii. 7, xxi. 25; Bphesians iv. 5). Baptismos: A washing (Mark vii. 4; Hebrews vi. 2, ix. 10)." This is one of the very latest and best lexicons of the New Testament. 23. LiDDELL and ScoTT: ''Baptidzo: To dip re- peatedly, dip under; mid., to bathe, hence to steep, wet; metaph., soaked in wine. To pour upon, drench, over head and ears in debt, a boy overwhelmed with questions. II. To dip a vessel and draw water. III. To baptize (New Testament)." We have quoted from Liddell and Scott's first edi- tion. We know that in their later editions they have taken out "to wet" and "to pour upon"; we know also that immersionist writers and controversalists have taken advantage of this fact to make the ignorant and unin- formed believe that, as they have affirmed, the learning of the world compelled Prof. Drisler, the American editor of Liddell and Scott, to take out "to pour upon." Let us examine this charge for a little while, and see if it is true : I. Liddell and Scott claim, and Prof. Drisler, their American editor, claims for them, that their lexicon is based upon Passow's great Greek-German Lexicon, and that it is largely an English translation of that great work. The Preface to the American edition begins thus : "It is with feelings of satisfaction that the editor is at length able to present Messrs. Liddell and Scott's en- The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 6i larged translation of Passow's Greek-German Lexicon to the American public." On page ix., in his Preface, the American editor says: "The most numerous additions, however, to this part of the Lexicon have, from the nature of the case, been drawn from other lexicons. Especially would the editor make the fullest acknowledgment of his indebtedness to the Paris edition of Stephen's Thesaurus, Pape's Greek-German Lexicon, Rost and Palm's new edition of Passow," etc., etc. In the Author's Preface, page xviii., they state: "In the title-page, our work is said to be based on the German work of Francis Passow. We cannot too fully express our obligations to this ex- cellent book, without which ours never would have been attempted." These extracts are sufficient to show that Liddell and Scott's Lexicon is based on Passow's great Greek- German Lexicon. In their first edition they do not give fully Passow's definition; but they do define it, "to WKT, to POUR UPON." They do not give his definition, ''gen- erally to BESPRINKLE." Why did they in their subse- quent editions omit "to WET," "to pour upon"? Did Passow omit "to sprinkle," "to pour upon," ''gen- erally to BESPRINKLE " ? Did Rost and Palm, in their new edition of Passow, to which Liddell and Scott acknowl- edge their obligations, omit these definitions? Nay, verily. Did Schneider omit them? Did Pape omit them? Did Gazes and Kouma, the great modern Greek lexicographers, omit "brecho, to sprinkle"? No. "The learning of the world" did not "compel" any of these great scholars to take out these definitions ; it centered its wrath all on the heads of Liddell and Scott and Prof. Drisler, their American editor. This was a most mar- velous exhibition of the wrath of "the learning of the world"; but it so happens that "the learning of the 62 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. world" is on the other side. Some other reason must be sought for Liddell and Scott's action and that of their American editor than the wrath of "the learning of the world." That reason is not hard to find. With the definition "to pour upon" in Liddell and Scott's Lex- icon the publishers could not sell it to the immersionists of England and America. This cut off about ten millions of English-speaking customers; this was no small loss to both authors and publishers. In Germany there are no such conditions, and consequently there is no such com- mercial temptation in the way of authors or publishers; and there we get the fruits of the ripest scholarship without commercial considerations getting in the way. "The learning of the world" demanded that these defini- tions should be retained; as they are in all the great German lexicons, where no commercial considerations demand their expurgation. Do we not here find the answer as to why these definitions were taken out of Liddell and Scott's Lexicon? Is there any other answer to the question? If "the scholarship of the world" had compelled Liddell and Scott to take out these definitions, it would most certainly have compelled Schneider, Passow, Rost and Palm, and Pape, the greatest scholars and lexicographers in the world, to have taken them out ; it would have compelled Gazes and Kouma, the greatest modern Greek lexicographers, to have taken them out; but it did not. They are only taken out of Greek- English lexicons where commercial interests, and not scholarship, demand it. Here everything is regulated by the commercial standard; in Germany everything of this character is regulated by the standard of scholarship. That makes the difference. The reader can see at a glance why these definitions were taken out of Liddell and Scott's Lexicon. The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 63 Let no immersionist ever claim again that "the learning of the world" compelled Liddell and Scott and their American editor to take out these definitions of haptidzo. Carson was right; all the lexicographers are against him. Let no immersionist ever again claim that the lexicons are on their side. / CHAPTER V. The Testimony of Commentators, Critics, and schoi^ars. We have seen in the preceding chapter that Dr. Carson's statement, that all the lexicographers are against him in his position, "that haptidzo always signifies to dip; never expressing anything but mode," is true. Let us examine, and see if the other part of his statement, that the^commentators are all against him, is true also. We will begin with that prince of commentators and linguists, Dr. Adam CivARKE, the most distinguished and universally learned commentator of the last century. On the meaning of haptidzo, in his comment on Matthew iii. 6, he says: "In what manner baptism was originally admin- istered has been deemed a subject worthy of serious dis- pute. Were the people dipped or sprinkled? for it is certain that Paino (bapto) and PairTcio {haptidzo) mean both." Thus deposes that prince of scholars as to the meaning of this word. 2. Dr. Thomas Scott was quite a learned com- mentator. In his comment on Matthew iii. 6 he says: "The word was adopted from the Greek authors, and a sense put upon it by the inspired writers, according to the style of Scripture, to signify the use of water in the sacrament of baptism, and in many things of a spiritual nature, which stand related to it. Some indeed contend zealously that baptism always signifies immersion; but 64 Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 65 the use of the words 'baptize' and 'baptism' in the New Testament cannot accord with this exclusive interpre- tation." 3. Joseph Benson was quite a learned commen- tator. In his comment on Matthew iii. 6 he says : "It has been questioned by many, whether John baptized these immense multitudes by dipping them in Jordan. In answer to which it has been observed, that such prodigious numbers could hardly be baptized by immersing their whole bodies under water; nor can we think they were provided with change of raiment for it, which was scarcely practicable for such vast multitudes. And yet they could not be immerged naked with modesty, nor in their wearing apparel with safety. It has been thought, therefore, that they stood in ranks on the edge of the river, and that John, passing along before them, cast water on their heads or faces; by which means he might baptize many thousands a day. This, it must be confessed, most naturally signified Christ's baptizing them with the Holy Ghost and with fire, which John spoke of as prefigured by his baptizing with water; and which was eminently fulfilled when the Holy Ghost sat upon the disciples, in the appearance of tongues or flames of fire." 4. John Wesley was a very learned man, especially in the Greek language. He was one of the very best Greek scholars in the United Kingdom in his day. In his "Notes on the New Testament," on Mark vii. 4, he says: "The Greek noun baptisms means indifferently either washing or sprinkling. The cups and pots were washed; the beds were sprinkled." Again he says : "The matter of this sacrament is water, which, as it has a natural power of cleansing, is the more fit for this 66 T^e Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. symbolical use. Baptism is performed by washing, dip- ping, or sprinkling the person in the name of the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost, who is hereby devoted to the ever- blessed Trinity. I say by washing, sprinkling, or dipping ; because it is not determined in Scripture in which of these ways it shall be done, neither by any express precept, nor by any example as clearly proves it; nor by THE FORCE OR MEANING OF THE WORD 'BAPTISM.' " Prof. Moses Stuart was a very learned man. In his work on the mode of baptism he makes larger conces- sions to immersionists than any other writer on our side of the question. Indeed, so large are his concessions, that Dr. J. R. Graves republished his book in 1856 as an immersionist document. I quote from Dr. Graves' edition. In his introduction to the book. Dr. Graves remarks : "Professor Stuart was in his day the brightest lu- minary in the constellation of Pedobaptist scholars. He was the bright particular star of Andover, and shed over that seminary a halo of intellectual light. The charm of his name, his reputation for profound and varied schol- arship, on both sides of the water, attracted students from the remotest sections of our Union, and for nearly half a century with his students, as with Pedobaptists, appeals to his authority have been considered ultimate." Let us see what is the conclusion this great scholar, so highly endorsed by Dr. Graves, reached as to the meaning of bapto and haptidzo and in regard to the mode of baptism. After years of patient investigation, he says : "I have now examined all those passages in the New Testament in which the circumstances related or implied would seem to have a bearing on the question before us — viz., Whether the mode of baptism is determined by the sacred writers? I am unabi^E to find anything which The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 67 APPEARS TO SETTLE THIS QUESTION. I find none, I am quite ready to concede, which seem absolutely to de- termine that immersion was not practiced. But are there not some, which have been cited above, that seem to render it improbable that immersion was always prac- ticed, to say the least? I can only say that such is my persuasion. The reader has the evidence before him, and can judge for himself. He will indulge me, I hope, in the same liberty. I do consider it as quite plain, that none of the circumstantial evidence thus far proves immersion to have been exclusively the mode of Christian baptism, or even that of John. Indeed, I consider this point so far made out that I can hardly suppress the conviction, that if anyone maintains the contrary, it must be either be- cause he is unable rightly to ESTIMATE THE nature or POWER OF THE Greek language, or because he is in- fluenced in some measure by party feeling; or else be- cause he has looked at the subject in only a partial manner, without examining it fully and thoroughly." (Stuart on "Christian Baptism," pp. 115-116.) This is pretty strong language, coming from a book published as an immersionist document. This great au- thority, so highly endorsed by Dr. Graves, instead of holding that baptidzo always means to dip or immerse, declares that those who hold that view are "unable rightly to estimate THE nature or power of the Greek language." This will do for Dr. Graves' star witness. Dr. John Owen, who is admitted to have been one of the ripest scholars of his day, says : "Baptism signifies to wash, as instances out of all authors may be given, as Suidas, Hesychius, Julius Pollux, Phavorinus, and Eustachius. It is first used in Scripture in Mark i. 5 and John i. 33, and to the same purpose in Acts i. 5. In every place it either signifies to 68 Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. POUR, or the expression is equivalent. *I baptize you with water, but He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost'; which is the accomplishment of that promise, that the Holy Ghost should be poured on them. Again, no one place can be given in the Scriptures wherein hap- tizo doth necessarily signify either to dip or plunge. Again, in this sense, as it expresseth baptism, it denotes to wash only, for so it is explained, Titus ii. 5, etc. Again, wherefore in this sense, as the word is applied unto the ordinance, the sense of dipping is utterly excluded.' (Owen's Works, Vol. XXI., p. 557; "Campbell and Rice Debate," p. 157.) Dean Alford was certainly a very learned man. In his Greek Testament with Notes, on Mark vii. 4, he remarks : "These haptismoi, as applied to klinon [meaning probably here couches {triclinia) used at meals], were certainly not immersions, but sprinklings or affusions of water." Dr. Timothy D wight, for twenty- two years pres- ident of Yale College, stands in the front rank of Amer- ican scholars. Speaking of the meaning of hapto and baptidzo, he says: "i. That the body of learned critics and lexicog- raphers declare that the original meaning of both these words is to tinge, stain, dye, or color; and that when it means immersion, it is only in a secondary and occasional sense ; derived from the fact that such things as are dyed, stained, or colored are often immersed for this end. This interpretation of the words, also, they support by such a series of quotations as seem unanswerably to evince that this was the original, classical meaning of these words. The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 69 "2. I have examined almost one hundred instan- ces, in which the word (^airri^oi (baptidzo) and its deriva- tives are used in the New Testament, and four in the Septuagint; these, so far as I have observed, being all the instances contained in both. By this examination it is to my apprehension evident that the following things are true : "That the primary meaning of these terms is cleans- ing; the effect, not the mode of washing. "That the mode is usually referred to incidentally whenever these words are mentioned; and that this is always the case wherever the ordinance of baptism is mentioned, and a reference is made, at the same time, to the mode of administration. "That these words, although often capable of de- noting any mode of washing, whether by affusion, sprink- ling, or immersion (since cleansing was familiarly accom- plished by the Jews in all these ways), yet, in many in- stances, cannot without obvious impropriety be made to signify immersion; and in others cannot signify it at all." (Dwight's "Theology," Vol. IV., pp. 345-346.) Dr. S. T. Bloomfield was a very learned man. In his Greek Testament with Notes, in two volumes, in his note on Mark vii. 4, he says: "This is best explained, unless they wash their bodies (in opposition to the washing of their hands be- fore mentioned) ; in which, however, is not implied im- mersion, which was never used, except when some actual, and not possible, pollution had occurred." His testimony is the more valuable from the fact that he held that immersion was the practice in the apostolic age, as we learn from his note on Romans vi. 1-6. But as a scholar he was compelled to state that baptidzo does not necessarily mean to immerse. yo The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. The celebrated James Arminius, D.D., professor of divinity in the University of Leyden, and founder of the Arminian system of theology, was a very learned man. In speaking of baptism, he says : ''The form of external baptism is that ordained ad- ministration, according to the institution of God, which consists of two things: (i) That he who is baptized BE SPRINKLED WITH THIS WATER. (2) That this SPRINK- LING be made in the name of the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. Analogous to this is the inward sprinkling and communication both of the blood and spirit of Christ, which is done by Christ alone, and which may be called the internal form of inward baptism." (Writings of Arminius, Vol. II., p. 160.) This great scholar here tells us that haptidzo means to SPRINKLE, and that the right form of water baptism "is the SPRINKLING of Water." McClintock and Strong's Biblical and Theological Cyclopedia, in twelve volumes, the standard cyclopedia of its character in the Enghsh language, a work of vast research and learning, says: "i. As to the meaning of ySaTrTtlw {haptidzo) , it is allowed on all hands, that it is (at least sometimes) ap- plied to acts involving the process of immersion, both by profane and sacred writers (see above). But the best lexicographers agree that this is not its exclusive meaning, and none but a daring controversialist would assert that it is As the word f^aTrri^oi {haptidzo) is used to express the various ablutions of the Jews, such as sprinkling, pouring, etc. (Hebrews ix. 10), for the custom of washing before meals, and the washing of household furniture, pots, etc., it is evident from hence that it does not express the manner of doing a thing, whether by im- mersion or affusion, but only the thing done — that is, The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 71 washing, or the application of water in some form or other." (Vol. I., p. 647.) We might go on with such quotations, and fill a volume with the testimonies of the greatest scholars who have ever lived, as to the meaning of baptidzo, but these are sufficient, especially as the great and honest Dr. Carson admits they are all against him. One of the common tricks of controversial writers and debaters on the side of immersion is to pile up a long list of names, mostly of persons unknown, to prove that baptidzo always means to immerse. This is done simply for effect on ignorant minds. It is not uncommon to find the names of John Wesley, Adam Clarke, Moses Stuart, etc., among the great scholars who are claimed by im- mersionists to hold that baptidzo always means dip, or immerse, and hence we have given the testimony of these great scholars, in their own language, to show the utter falsehood of this claim. We have quoted only from scholars of the first class, men who are universally known and admitted to be such. The testimony of one such man outweighs a thousand names of men unknown. When we come to examine the use the early Greek and Latin fathers made of this word, we will see that they agree exactly with these great modern scholars, or, rather, that these great modern scholars agree with them, as to the meaning of baptidzo. CHAPTER VI. TuH Classical Use oi? "Baptidzo." Our immersionist friends, conscious of the fact that the lexicons, commentators, and critics are all against their position, appeal from these authorities to the use of the word in Greek writers. Dr. Carson says : "Use is the sole arbiter of language; and whatever is agreeable to this authority stands BEYOND IMPEACHMENT." (Carsou on "Baptism," p. 46.) The capitals are his. Dr. Carson is correct in this; but this is precisely what the lexicons are based upon. The lexicographer examines the passages in which a word occurs in reputable writers of a language, and determines its meaning ac- cordingly. The man who, like Dr. Carson, appeals from the authority of the lexicons, simply sets up his judgment against the judgment of the lexicographers, as to the meaning of fa word as fixed and determined by its use; with this difference, the chances are largely in favor of the lexicographer, as he has a much larger acquainta^ice with the use of the word, and is unfettered by any the- ological bias. But, strange to say, our immersionist friends universally appeal to classical use, when they know that the New Testament was not written in classic Greek; and that therefore classic use can determine nothing as to the meaning of words used in it. Dr. Carson admits that all living languages are continually changing the use of their words, and he cites bapto and candlestick as examples. He says: The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 73 ** Nothing in the history of words is more common than to enlarge or diminish their signification. Ideas not originally included in them are often affixed to some words, while others drop ideas originally asserted in their application. 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, because this was the way in which things were usually dyed. And afterwards, from dyeing by dipping, it came to denote dyeing in any manner. A like process might be shown in the history of a thousand words. Candlestick originally denoted a stick to hold a candle, but now the utensil employed to hold a candle is called a candlestick even when it is of gold." (Ibid., p. 44.) Again, he says : "Bapto signifies to dye by sprinkling, as properly as by dipping, though originally it was confined to the latter." (Ibid., p. 46.) Now if bapto could change its meaning so radically by use, could not baptidzo do the same, even if it did orig- inally mean to dip, as our immersionist friends contend it did? Is there any law of language to forbid baptidzo from J folio wing the example of its parent bapto in this respect? But we have shown, we think conclusively, in Chapter II., that the original, primary, and proper meaning of both these words was to dye, while as sec- ondary meanings they meant to dip, to pour upon, to sprinkle, etc., because dyeing may be done by any of these ways. Dr. George Campbell, in his "Philosophy of Rhet- oric," shows clearly that use alone can determine the mean- ing of words in any given period of the history of a lan- guage, or in any country or province. He says: — 6 — 74 Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. "Only let us rest in these fixed principles, that use or custom of speaking is the sole original standard of con- versation as far as regards the expression, and the custom of writing the sole standard of style ; that the latter com- prehends the former, and something more; that to the tribunal of use as the supreme authority, and conse- quently, in every grammatical controversy, the last re- sort, we are entitled to appeal from the laws and the decisions of grammarians; and that this order of sub- ordination ought never, on any account, to be reversed." ('The Philosophy of Rhetoric," p. 164.) Again, he says: "It is never from an attention to etymology, which would frequently mislead us, but from custom, the only infallible guide in this matter, that the meaning of words in present use must be learned. And, indeed, if the want in question were material, it would equally affect all those words, no inconsiderable part of our language, whose descent is doubtful or unknown." {Ibid., p. 191.) Again, he says: * ' But there will naturally arise here another question : Is not use, even good and national, in the same country, different in different periods? And if so, to the usage of what period shall we attach ourselves as the proper rule? If you say the present, as it may be reasonably expected that you will, the difficulty is not entirely removed. In what signification must we understand the word present? How far may we safely range in quest of authorities? or at what distance backward from this moment are authors still to be accounted as possessing a legislative voice in language? This, I own, it is difficult to give an answer with all the precision that might be desired. Yet it is certain that, when we are in search of precedents for any word or idiom, there are certain^mounds which we cannot Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 75 overleap with safety. For instance, the authority of Hooker or Raleigh, however great their merit and their fame be, will not now be admitted in support of a term or expression not to be found in any good writer of a later date. . . . It is not by ancient, but by present use, that our style must be regulated. And that use can never be denominated present which hath been laid aside time immemorial, or, which amounts to the same thing, falls not within the knowledge or remembrance of any now living. . . . But if present use is to be re- nounced for ancient, it will be necessary to determine at what precise period antiquity is to be regarded as a rule. One inclines to remove the standard to the distance of a century and a half; another may, with as good reason, fix it three centuries backward, and another six. And if the language of any of these periods is to be judged by the use of any other, it will be found, no doubt, entirely barbarous. To me it is so evident that either the present use must be the standard of the present language, or that language admits of no standard whatever, that I cannot conceive a clearer or more indisputable principle from which to bring an argument. ... If you desert the present use, and by your example at least establish it as a maxim, that every critic may revive at pleasure old- fashioned terms, inflections, and combinations, and make such alterations on words as will bring them nearer to what he supposeth to be etymon, there can be nothing fixed or stable on the subject. Possibly you prefer the usage that prevailed in the reign of Queen Elizabeth; another may, with as good reason, have a partiality for that which subsisted in the days of Chaucer. And with regard to etymology, about which grammarians make so much useless bustle, if everyone hath a privilege of al- tering words according to his own opinion of their origin, 76 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. the opinions of the learned being on this subject so various, nothing but a general chaos can ensue. . . Thus I have attempted to explain what that use is which is the sole mistress of language, and to ascertain the pre- cise import and extent of these her essential attributes, R^PUTABLK, NATIONAL, and PRESENT, and to give the directions proper to be observed in searching for the laws of this empress. In truth, grammar and criticism are but her ministers ; and though, like other ministers, they would impose sometimes the dictates of their humor upon the people as the commands of their sovereign, they are not so often successful in such attempts as to encourage the frequent repetition of them." {Ibid., pp. 170, 171, 172, 173, 174.) We wish to call particular attention to the three points which Dr. Campbell makes prominent in the usE which fixes the meaning of words: (i) reputable, (2) NATIONAL, (3) PRESENT. REPUTABLE use is the use of reputable writers of a language. National use is the use, not of a province, or district, but of the nation. In case a language becomes by conquest the general language of law and literature and the medium of communication among the people, as the Greek language did after the conquest of Alexander, the use of any one nation must de- termine the meaning of the words used by that nation. That is national use. Hence, to determine the meaning of any Greek word used among the Jews, not its use by classical writers, but its Jewish use, must be sought. Present use must be confined to present time. Dr. Campbell admits that this is a difficult matter to de- termine. But present use among the Jews may reason- ably go back to the introduction of the Greek language into Palestine after the conquest of Alexander. This in- cludes the time of the translation of the Septuagint and The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 77 the writing of the books of the Apocrypha, down to the time of Christ and the apostles. In ascertaining the meaning of haptidzo by the use of the word among the Jews during this time and among the early Christians for the first three hundred years of the Christian era, we cer- tainly have the only authoritative use of the word we can have to determine its meaning in the Bible. This gives Dr. Campbell's three rules governing use in fixing the meaning of words: reputable, national, and present. Dr. HiNTON, an eminent Baptist writer, in his "History of Baptism," says: "It is manifest that the meaning of a word in any given case is not to be determined by its original sense, but by its actual or ordinary meaning in the language in which the author wrote, and at the time of his writing; unless the circumstances in which the word occurs re- quire a figurative or technical signification (which may also include the ordinary) to be attached. ... It does not appear to me, however, in the slightest degree important to the argument that no case of variation of meaning shall be found. What word can be more specific than the Saxon word dip9 And yet we have the dip of the magnetic needle, which certainly has nothing to do with plunging. Could several instances of exten- sion or dilution of meaning be found among the profane Greek writers, it would not affect the question, which is, In what sense did ChRisT and His apostlks usk the TERM 'bAPTIDZO,' AND WHAT DID THEY DESIGN THE DIS- CIPLES THEN AND NOW TO UNDERSTAND BY IT?" (Hiu- ton's "History of Baptism," pp. 18-23.) A clearer or more concise statement of the case, it seems to me, could not be made than is this statement by this eminent Baptist writer. All three of the writers above quoted to prove our position as to the meaning of 78 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. words to be determined by use, national and present y were strong immersionists. Dr. George Campbell was a Presbyterian ; but tie believed strongly in immersion. It is strange indeed, after such strong and sane statements by these eminent immersionist scholars, that they would immediately turn around and violate the principles they here have so clearly laid down, and, passing over the use of the word baptidzo among the Jews and early Christians (which Dr. Hinton here declares is the real question in debate), appeal to the classic Greek writers hundreds of miles away, and some of them hundreds of years before Christ. The only reason I can conceive for them pur- suing this course is the consciousness that if they confine themselves to this use of the word to determine its meaning, their cause is lost. Is this honest? I do not call in question the honesty of such men as Dr. Carson and my Baptist brethren in general, but this only shows to what extent prejudice can blind the minds of good men, when they are supporting a theory which cannot be maintained by facts. We will see some very striking illustrations of this as we proceed in this discussion. But classical use utterly fails to sustain the position of immersionists. We will take up, first, some of the ex- amples cited by Carson to prove that baptidzo "always signifies to dip; never expressing anything but mode." His first example is taken from Polybius, where he is speaking of soldiers "passing through the water, im- mersed up to the breast." On this he remarks: "Here surely the word cannot mean pouring or sprinkling." And as surely it cannot mean the "mode" of baptism, as practiced by immersionists. Where is the act of dip in this case? Soldiers walking in the water until it reaches the waist is not a dipping. This example fails to support Carson's "mode"; the "dip" is wanting; and in The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 79 its place we have "wet up to the waist," not by "dip- ping," but by walking into the water. The cause of im- mersion must be hard pressed when it resorts to such an example as this to prove its cause. His second example is taken from Plutarch. He says: "Plutarch, speaking of a Roman general, dying of his wounds, dipped (baptized) his hand in blood and wrote the inscription for a trophy." On this he remarks: "Here the mode of the action cannot be questioned. The instrument of writing is dipped (baptized) in the coloring fluid." But there is no immersion of the hand in this case ; the end of the index finger is dipped in the blood, so as to moisten it for the purpose of writing, and this is called ' ' the baptism ' ' of the hand. If the hand had been immersed or plunged in the blood, he could not have written at all, for the blood dripping from the hand on the material used to write upon would have blurred it so the writing would not have been legible. It is strange that so astute a writer as Dr. Carson was should produce such an example as this to prove that baptidzo "always signifies to dip; never expressing anything but mode," when dip is entirely out of the question. Dr. Carson gives a number of other examples where immersion is out of the question. Could there be a clearer example furnished to prove that *^e moistening of a small part of the object baptized is called the baptism of the whole object? This example is decisive against the position of Dr. Carson, and proves that baptidzo sometimes means in classic Greek to moisten only a small part of the object said to be baptized, and that this moistening is the baptism of the whole object. In another of his examples he says : "Two Greek critics are quoted by Dr. Gale as ap- plying the word in exhibiting the beauty of Homer's rep- resentation of the death of one of his heroes. 'He struck 8o Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. him across the neck with his heavy sword, and the whole sword became warm with blood.' On this Pseudo Did- ymus says that the sword is represented as dipped in blood. And Dionysius says: 'In that phrase Homer expresses himself with the greatest energy, signifying that the sword was so dipped in blood that it was even heated by it.' " In this example Dr. Carson renders baptisthentes "dipped," yet there is no dipping of the sword in blood; but there is a baptism of the sword with blood. The sword was not said to have been immersed in the neck of the hero; but it was said to have been baptized with the blood of the hero. How was this baptism performed? The blood gushing out upon the sword is represented as so baptizing it, that it becomes heated by it. This is a clear case of baptism by flowing forth, or falling upon, as could be furnished in human language; and yet it is paraded by both Carson and Conant as an example that baptidzo always means to immerse! It does not matter about the quantity of blood that gushed upon the sword from the wound inflicted; it is the mode that is in ques- tion, and that was unquestionably not immersion. Another one of Dr. Carson's examples to prove that baptidzo always mean to dip or immerse in classic usages is taken from Hippocrates, and is the celebrated case of the baptism of the blister-plaster. He says : "Hippocrates uses the word sometimes, and always in the sense for which I contend. We have seen that he uses bapto very often; I have not found baptidzo more than four times. This circumstance sufficiently proves that though the words are so nearly related, they are not perfectly identical in signification. The first occurrence of it is in page 254: 'Dip (baptize) it again in breast- milk and Egyptian ointment.' He is speaking of a The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 8i blister, which was first to be dipped (bapted) in the oil of roses, and if, when thus applied, it should be too painful, it was to be dipped again in the manner above stated. The first dipping, as we have seen from a preceding quo- tation, is expressed by hapsas (bapto). This shows that in radical signification of dipping these words are of per- ectly the same import." (Carson on "Baptism," p. 64.) Now we know that a blister-plaster is never im- mersed in anything before it is applied. No physician, from Hippocrates or Galen down to the present time, ever directed that a blister-plaster should be immersed in oil or anything else, especially in woman's milk, before it should be applied. It does seem that even Dr. Carson, with all his zeal for immersion, ought to have known that. But this is only another illustration of how the prejudice of opinion can blind the best and wisest of men. We have seen that some of the best lexicons define bapto to moisten, etc. We have seen also that some of the best modern German lexicographers, as Passow, Rost and Palm, and Pape, also so define baptidzo. This is unquestionably an example where both these words mean to moisten the surface of the blister-plaster, first with rose-oil, before ap- plying, where bapto is used, and then, if too painful, take it off and moisten it again, with Egyptian ointment and woman's milk; in this last case baptidzo is used. Dr. Carson says: "Both these words are of perfectly the same import as to mode; and this example proves that they both sometimes mean to moisten. This example certainly ought to settle the question in every mind that is not hopelessly under the power of prejudice, as to the meaning of these words." Dr. CoNANT, realizing that a blister-plaster was not a thing to be immersed before applying, and that no physi- cian would ever give such a direction concerning a blis- 82 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. ter-plaster, undertook to avoid the difficulty by writ- ing [pessary] into the text. He inclosed "pessary" in brackets, showing that he supplied the word. A bolder or more unwarranted liberty was never taken with a passage than Dr. Conant has taken with this passage from Hippocrates. He knew he had no authority what- ever to write this word into this prescription, for he had it before him; but he only quotes part of it. If he had quoted the whole prescription, everyone could have seen at a glance that Dr. Carson was right in calling it a blister-plaster, for it is that, pure and simple, and nothing more. Here is the prescription in full as written by Hippocrates : " ;)(av^aptSas TreVre ttXtjv twv ttoBwv kol Toyy x^c^aXwi/j kul o-fivpvav Xi^aviOTov ajxa. (TV(XfXL(jyav. kol jxiXi fxer' avrCjv, tireiTO y8ai//as £S aXu<^a pcStvov r) alyvTTTLOv TrpaOiaOo) rrjv rjfxipav^ kol iTTTjV SaxvrjTaL^ a.<^aipk6ai. Kat jSaTTTt^etv iraXiv h yaXa ywat^os Koi fxvpov AlyvTTTLOv. Trpoa-TcOepOaL oi tovto es vvKTa kol Oiavti- ca-OaL iv vSart evwSet, irpCTTidivaL Se o-reap." Translation. — "Five Spanish flies without their feet and heads, and myrrh, frankincense, and honey mixed with these; then moisten with oil of roses or Egyptian oil and apply during the day, and when it stings, take it off and moisten again with woman's milk and Egyptian oil, and apply during the night, and rinse with sweet- scented water, and apply tallow." This is perhaps as Hteral a translation of this passage as we can get. Bapto and haptidzo in this passage can mean only to moisten the surface of the blister-plaster, for that was what the Doctor directed to be done before ap- plying it. The ingredients of which this prescription was composed clearly demonstrate that it was a blister- plaster, and a very powerful one at that — much more so than that in the United States Dispensatory. That is The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 83 made of "Spanish flies, yellow wax, and resin, mixed with lard." Spanish flies, myrrh, and frankincense are all capable of blistering. Frankincense is the turpentine taken from the pine-tree in tears or drops. Anyone ac- quainted with the medical properties of these ingredients will see at a single glance that the blistering preparation of Hippocrates was much stronger than that in common use now. A man must be absolutely mad to talk seri- ously of making a pessary out of such ingredients. Dr. Conant's giving but a part of the passage, and not giving the prescription in full, and writing in "pessary" in brackets, has led many to adopt his reading who were not scholars and who had not the original. In my first debate with Mr. Sweeney, he took Conant's position. So did Dr. Lucas in my debate with him, at Golconda, 111., in 1867. He had Dr. Conant's "Baptizein," and so had I. I de- manded Conant's authority for putting in the word. He turned to me and said: "You will not call in question Dr. Conant's authority as a scholar, will you? " I replied : "Dr. Conant was a scholar, but he was a partisan on this question, and I would take his word on this question, just as I would yours, when he produced the authority for his statement, and no further." He turned to me as if feeling he had me conquered, and handed me his copy of Conant, and said: "Will Elder Hughey read this passage from Conant in Greek, and tell us what prosthestho means?" I took the book and said : "I will." I said : "It means 'to apply,' and is so translated in this passage by Conant himself. But what is it that is to be applied? Carson says it was a blister; Conant says it was a pessary. I want to know his authority for so saying." That au- thority has never been given, for there is no authority for it. 84 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, In my debate with Elder Clarke Braden, in 1868, at Vienna, 111., which was published, he followed Conant, and was so sure that he was right, after the debate he sent to Leipsic, and got the original of Hippocrates, and wrote an appendix to the debate on this passage. Of course he had to send it to me, and I prepared a reply to it. I had him send me the book, and his appendix and my reply were both published in the "Debate." His transla- tion of the passage is another illustration of what men will sometimes do in their efforts to support a theory which cannot be supported by sound arguments and facts. It is strange indeed how a man of Mr. Braden's learning and sense in other things could be led to publish such an article as his appendix in that debate on Hip- pocrates. He quotes more than an entire page from Hippocrates in Greek, and gives a Latin translation of it ; and then gives what he calls an English translation. The various prescriptions contained in this long extract from Hippocrates are all pessaries with Mr. Braden. It does not matter with him what materials are used or how they are applied, whether internally or externally. Whether they are to be taken internally, to act upon the liver and produce catharsis, or whether they are to be made into a salve and applied externally as a salve or ointment, it makes no difference with him — they are all the same in- strument ! He has a wonderful assortment of that article, such as no physician ever had, and he puts them to uses such as no physician ever dreamed of ! I might give a page or two of his "pungent," "pur- gative," "emollient," etc., instruments of this character; but I will refer the reader to Appendix C of " Braden and Hughey Debate" for the most original treatise on that instrument to be found in the English language. But I must give one more example. He reaches the climax in The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 85 this wonderful treatise in the next to the last of his ex- amples, where he suppresses a part of a sentence, and makes the Doctor say what he never said and never in- tended to say. Hippocrates wrote: ''Prostheta een mee ta katopata katheira." Mr. Braden, in his translation of this prescription, dropped out ta katopata, and translated it, "Pessaries, if these do not purge." Why did he do this? Had he translated it correctly, it would have sent the physician's prescription down his patient's throat, and that would have spoiled his whole argument! What was he to do? If he had translated this prescription as he had been translating, it would have read: "If these pessaries, when swallowed down, do not purge." But this would not do; so he dropped out ta katopata alto- gether! A proper translation of this prescription would also have shown that his translation of prostheton and prostheta in this entire connection was wrong ; that these words did not mean pessary and pessaries, but prepara- tions of different medicines added together. The Uteral meaning of prostheton is, "added, put on, fitted to"; and these prostheta were medicines added together, and ap- plied as directed. This clears up all of Mr. Braden's difficulties, and saves him all the trouble of making pes- saries out of salves, ointments, and purgative potions! But the trouble with Dr. Conant, Mr. Braden, and those who follow Dr. Conant is, Liddell and Scott give as a third definition of prostheton, "a pessary." This is not its first or ordinary definition, but a remote and seldom- used definition. Dr. Conant, Mr. Braden, and those who follow Dr. Conant here violate that rule of interpretation which they elsewhere insist upon so strongly, that words are always to be understood in their first or ordinary meaning, unless the connection in which they are used fixes another meaning upon them. 86 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, The proper Greek word for pessary is pessos, not prostheton. Ballanon is also used for pessary. Webster derives the English pessary from the Latin pessus and the Greek pessos. We can see how accurate Mr. Braden is in his statements by the following : "4. The Greek word for pessary (prostheton) oc- curs in the context preceding the passage, and is clearly- understood in nearly a dozen places. The verb pros- tithemi means to make a support, or prop, or pessary, being used instead of its derivative prostitheto, which means specifically to make a pessary. Hence in con- nection with the verb ruh, the idea is rub them together, and place them together in a pessary." On this passage from Mr. Braden I remark : 1. He does not intimate that there is any other Greek word for pessary but prostheton. 2. He does not tell us that pessos is the proper Greek word for pessary, and that Webster traces the English word back to this Greek word. 3. He does not tell us that the first definition of prostheton is ''added, put, or fitted to," and that it is only in its third or remote sense that it is defined in the sense he puts upon it. 4. He tells us: "The verb prostithemi means to make a support, or prop, or pessary." This statement is utterly without foundation. Prostithemi is never so de- fined and has no such meaning. It means, "to add, add to," etc. But it never means "to make a support, or prop, or pessary." 5. He assumes that the writer did not know what word he wanted to use, and that he used one word for another of a totally different meaning. 6. Hippocrates uses prostithemi hundreds of times and in all its forms; but when he speaks of applying a Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 87 pessary, he uses pessos with it, as on page 594 of this same volume, ''Pessous prostithesthoo," "Apply the pessary"; or ballanon, as on page 707, in this immediate connection, "Ballanon kai prostithemi." If prostithemi is used by Hippocrates in the sense or senses for which Mr. Braden contends, why should he use those words which unmis- takably mean "pessary" with it? The very fact that Hippocrates uses prostithemi thus proves that he does not use it in the sense for which Mr. Braden contends, but simply "to apply." Again, Mr. Braden says : "Every physician knows that a pessary must be dipped before insertion, and the Greek writer used hap- tidzo, the word which peculiarly and specifically means that action." It is surprising that a man of ordinary sense could write such a sentence as the above. Every physician, and everybody else who knows what that instrument is used for, or anything about its use, knows that before using it is never "dipped" in anything, much less "in woman's milk" ! Some emollient substance is smeared over it to prepare it for use, but "woman's milk" would not be a suitable unguent for that purpose. No physician would ever use a word which specifically means to dip in giving directions how to prepare a pessary or blister- plaster for use. It is not mode he wants, but efject. It is putting the emollient substance on the object, not plunging the object into it, that he wants. We have clearly shown that Dr. Conant's and Mr. Braden' s translation of prostheton is out of the question, and that it is, as Dr. Carson states, simply a blister- plaster that is directed to be baptized; and we know a blister-plaster is never immersed in anything before being applied. The fact that Hippocrates here uses baptidzo 88 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. proves that it does not necessarily mean to dip or im- merse ; but is simply a word expressing effect, not mode. Mode was not in his mind. He did not command mode. Effect was in his mind, and he commanded effect, which was the thing he wanted. The same would have been the case if it had been a pessary. Hence nothing has been gained by the tremendous efforts of Dr. Conant and Mr. Braden to make a pessary out of a blister-plaster. They had better have accepted Dr. Carson's position, and saved themselves from all this trouble and nonsense. Carson was honest. He knew it was a blister-plaster, and he said so, and relied on haptidzo to dip or immerse it. But Conant, Braden, and others knew that a blister- plaster could not be immersed, and that no doctor would ever direct one to be immersed; hence they must find something that could be immersed without ruining it. This passage is the more important as it is the first example of the use of haptidzo in its literal sense that has come down to us in Greek literature. Hippocrates was born B. C. 430, forty-six years before Aristotle, who is the next to use it in a literal sense. Hippocrates uses both hapto and haptidzo to express the same thing — the moistening of a blister-plaster before applying it. It is remarkable that in the first example we have of the literal use of haptidzo in any Greek writer it unquestionably means "TO moistkn." The next example of the literal use of haptidzo is by Aristotle. He was the most accurate and thorough in his scholarship in his native tongue of all the classic Greek writers. He says: "They say that the Phoenicians who inhabit the so- called Gadira, sailing four days outside of the Pillars of Hercules with an east wind, come to certain desert places full of rushes and sea-weed, which when it is ebb-tide are The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 89 not IMMERSED (baptized), but when it is flood-tide are overflowed." (Conant's translation.) Conant here translates baptizesthai "immersed," and katakludzesthai "overflowed." Both these words express the same thing, the action of the water in coming over the land. There was no immersion in this case : the water came upon the land, the land was not plunged into the water. Katakludzo is thus defined by Liddell and Scott: "To dash over, deluge, flood; to fill full of water; to deluge, flood, or fill over- full with. II. To wash down or away; also, to wash out." There is no immerse in this word; and Aristotle uses it as equivalent to baptidzo. It is a most significant fact that in the two first examples of baptidzo that we have in Greek literature, where baptidzo is used in its literal sense, the first means ''to moisten," and the second means "to dash." Neither can be forced to mean "immerse." Another example furnished by Carson and Conant is taken from the Homeric "Allegories," as given by Con- ant, who translates it thus: "Since the mass of iron, drawn red-hot from the furnace, is plunged (baptized) in [with] water, and the fiery glow by its own nature is quenched with water, ceases." On this passage we remark: i. This is a "mass of red-hot iron," a thing not to be plunged in water. 2. Hudati baptizetai is not "plunged in water," but ''bap- tized with water." On this passage from Homer the learned Dr. Dale, in his "Classic Baptism," pp. 325-326, remarks : "i. It is as certain as anything in philology, that 'plunge,' distinctively, as expressing a form of action, does not define (SaTTTiio) (baptidzo). To overflow, as ex- pressing a form of action, is as near the contradictory of —7— 90 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 'plunge' as it can well be; yet 'overflow' is used by Bap- tist scholars to define this Greek word. And in such use 'overflow' performs its duty, to say the least, as faith- fully as does 'plunge.' But it is a philological axiom, that where two differing forms of action can be employed in the exposition of the same word, such word can be strictly defined by neither. " 'Plunge' has no right to appear as the critical rep- resentative of PaiTTi^oi (baptidzo). And in any case of baptism where the form of act is not expressly stated (it can never be learned from the word itself), it is entirely inexcusable for anyone to bring forward the form of an act, insist upon its autocratic rights, and fashion the phraseology after its model. "No argument can be grounded on the assumption of a plunging. "2. The simple dative, with pairri^oi {baptidzo) y an- nounces, with authority, therefore, the presence of agen- cy, and not of element. "There is, therefore, no authority in vSart ^aTrrt^cTat (hudati haptizetai) for saying that hot iron is 'plunged in water.' If it is urged, in defense, that water is capable of receiving hot iron by plunging, this is freely admitted. If it is urged, 'Hot iron is very frequently , in fact, plunged in water,' this too is unhesitatingly admitted. After all else can be said, the reply is short and crushing: (i) PaTTTiio) says nothing about plunging. (2) Hot iron may be mersed in other ways than by plunging. (3) The phraseology indicates the agency by which, and not the element in which, the result is accomplished. Rational discussion must here end." In addition to Dr. Dale's remarks, I want to call at- tention to the fact that Dr. Conant, in the very next Une, translates hudati correctly "with water." Hudati kat- The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 91 asbesthen he translates "quenched with water." Why- did he not translate hudati "with water" in the first line where it is used with baptizetai9 Simply because it would have baptized the "mass of iron" with and not in water, and this would not have done at all. It would have taken this passage out of the hands of immersionists and given it to us. So truth must be sacrificed to sustain theory! The truth of the case is, the "mass of red-hot iron" was drawn from the furnace and cold water was thrown on it, and this is expressed by hudati baptizetai, "baptized with water.'' Dr. Conant gives us the example of the baptism of Bacchus by the sea: "Why do they pour sea- water into wine, and say that fishermen received an oracle com- manding them to immerse (baptize) Bacchus in (or at) the sea?" This is indeed a strange immersion! An immersion of Bacchus, an imaginary being, having no personality, immersed by pouring sea-water into wine! Tempering wine by pouring sea- water into it is immersing Bacchus 1 That is what Dr. Conant solemnly says. This shows us what infinite folly men will immerse themselves in when trying to support a theory which cannot be supported by facts and common sense. Here is a plain case of baptism by POURING, and Dr. Conant solemnly declares that Bac- chus was immersed by this means! But this is not all. Dr. Conant translates pros "in." But he did not have the hardihood to let that go without putting in paren- theses (or at). This is another case which Dr. Conant furnishes us where baptidzo cannot mean immerse; but where it simply means to pour. Quite a number of both Dr. Carson's and Dr. Conant's examples are where baptidzo means "to sink," as of ships sinking to the bottom and remaining there; or of per- 92 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. sons drowning. Every such example is squarely against their position; for with them the emersion in baptism is just as essential as the immersion. Dr. Conant, it is true, holds that emersion is not in baptidzo, but it is in the act which he calls baptism; and his position on the meaning of baptidzo only proves that it does not express the action which he calls baptism. Carson, Campbell, and the advocates of immersion in general hold that emersion is expressed by the word as well as immersion. If they were to insist on this classical meaning of baptidzo, which is illustrated by these ex- amples of the sinking of ships, they would not make many converts. Most people would choose the "land route." Why do they bring up these examples when they com- pletely set aside their mode of baptism? Every such ex- ample as clearly sets aside their mode or action of baptism as do the examples where it clearly means to pour or sprinkle. Dr. Carson's mode and Mr. Campbell's action of baptism is not sinking to the bottom and remaining there, nor is it drowning. It is putting a person moment- arily under water and then immediately lifting him out again. If baptidzo means to immerse, and if it expresses the mode or action of baptism, it is this mode or action which it expresses. If it does not express this mode or action, it does not express the mode or action of the Chris- tian ordinance, and consequently the mode or action of baptism must be found outside of the word baptidzo. It seems that this is so plain that a child cannot help but see it. As so much stress is put by immersionists on the meaning of this word, we must hold them strictly to what they mean by baptism. Another large class of examples adduced by Conant and others to prove that baptidzo always means to im- merse is where it means drunk or to make drunk; also The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 93 trouble, debts, etc. Dr. Conant usually translates it in these examples '^whelmed'' or "overwhel7ned." Now in all these examples 7node or action is entirely out of the ques- tion. Effect or condition is the only thing expressed by baptidzo or baptismos. Every one of these examples is as thoroughly against their position as to mode or action as if it meant to pour or sprinkle. Why cannot these over- zealous advocates of immersion see this? The mode of Conant's ''whelming'^ or "overwhelming" is never by im- mersion, but always by coming upon! A man is not "plunged" in drunkenness; it comes upon him as the re- sult of drinking. A man is not "plunged" in trouble or debt ; they come upon him. Every such example of bap- tidzo is an illustration of its meaning "to come upon," and cannot be pleaded as examples favoring immersion. They are squarely against immersion, and prove con- clusively that baptidzo does not mean immersion in any of these examples. They must all be given up by im- mersionists. It is in all such examples a word expressing effect, not mode or action. Let us take another class of Dr. Conant's examples, where whole cities or countries are said to be baptized. He gives us three examples, two of which are taken from Josephus, and are as follows: I. "The people of Jerusalem, expostulating with Josephus on his purpose to abandon the besieged city and its inhabitants to their fate, say to him: 'And it did not become him, either to abandon friends or to fly from enemies; nor to leap off, as from a ship overtaken by a storm, into which he had entered in fair weather; that he would himself overwhelm (baptize) the city, as no one would longer dare to make resistance to the enemy when he was gone through whom their courage was sustained. ' " 94 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 2. "Speaking- of the evils inflicted by the band of robber-chiefs who found their way into the city of Je- rusalem during the siege, he says: 'Who, even apart from the sedition, afterwards whelmed {baptized) the city.' " Surely there is no ''dip'' or ''plunge" or "immerse" in these examples. The idea is, the calamities come upon the city, not the city "dipped" into the calamities. It is ef- fect, not mode, that is expressed here. How could a word that simply expresses mode or action be used to express not mode or action, but simply effect? But the effect was produced by calamities "coming upon." His next example is taken from Himerius, Selection XV., who says, speaking of Themistocles : "He was great at Salamis ; for there, fighting, he whELMEd (e^aTrriorc, baptized) all Asia." Here, again, there is no "dip," no "plunge," no "im- merse." Mode or action is not in the word at all. Effect is all that is expressed. The effect of the victory gained by Themistocles at Salamis was felt in all Asia ; and this is called the baptism of all Asia. We ask again. How could a word simply expressing mode or action be used to express this effect? The power of the Greeks was ex- tended over Asia as a result of the victory of Salamis, and this is another example of baptidzo meaning "to come upon," and not "to plunge into." We will examine a few more of Dr. Conant's ex- amples. In his Example 39, taken from Heliodorus, speaking of a band of pirates, who had seized a vessel and were unable to manage it in the storm that ensued, he says: "And already becoming immergEd (baptized), and wanting little of sinking, some of the pirates at first attempted to leave, and get aboard of their own bark." Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 95 Here is certainly a baptism without immersion; for the ship is ''baptized,'' but is not sunk. Can a ship or anything be baptized and not sunkf Must not the bap- tized object, according to Dr. Conant, be sunk, or put under water, in order to be baptized? But this ship is "already baptized,'' according to Dr. Conant, and only lacking a little of going under! Baptized and still not im- mersed, or put under ! That will do. We will not object to that kind of baptism — baptism without ini7nersion. The waves dashing upon the vessel baptized it, but they did not immerse it. Let us look at his Example 1 1 1 , taken from Achilles Tatius, where the writer says: "What so great wrong have we done, as in a few days to be whelmed (baptized) with such a multitude of evils?" Notice the translation of Dr. Conant. He does not say "immersed in," but "baptized with," such a multitude of evils! How could they be immersed with these evils? Dr. Conant's use of the word "with" here shows that he understood that there was no immersion in the case, but that the afflictions came upon them, and not that they were "plunged" into them. Here is a baptism with, and not in, the element used, and hence it is not an immkrsion. Dr. Conant himself being judge. In Example 121, taken from Heliodorus, he says: "When midnight had plunged (baptized) the city in sleep, an armed band of revellers took possession of the dwell- ing of Chariclea." No city was ever "plunged" in sleep. Sleep came gently over the city; not violently, as if all were suddenly "plunged," but gently, one by one, they fell under the power of sleep. Sleep coming over them; not they being "plunged" into it. All such examples prove that baptidzo is not a word expressing mode or action, but result or effect. We need 96 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. not pursue this line of argument any further, for all such examples prove that baptidzo is not a word of mode or action, but of effect or condition; and they effectually set aside the claims of immersion. Dr. Conant, in his "Baptizein," renders baptidzo by ten words, if I have counted correctly, and there is only a discrepancy of one in his examples of Greek use and my count. He translates 6a/>^t(i20 and baptismos ''immerse" and "immersion" 115 times, "whelm" 53 times, "over- whelm" 17 times, "submerse" 24 times, "dip" and "dip- ping" 12 times, "immerge" 12 times, "plunge" 17 times, "imbathed" 2 times, "demersed" 2 times, and "undergo" 5 times. (See "Baptizein," page 99, where is his trans- lation of Mark x. 38-39 and Luke xii. 50.) This is pretty good for Dr. Carson's and Mr. Campbell's stictly univocaIv word ! A word strictly univocal with TEN meanings ! If baptidzo is strictly a univocal word, why not al- ways translate it by the same word? Do "whelm" and "overwhelm" mean the same, as to mode or action, a's "immerse"? The primary meaning of "whelm," as defined by Webster, is, "to cover with water, or other fluid." The mode or action of "whelm" is to come upon, not to plunge into. Immerse is a secondary meaning, be- cause a thing may be covered or enveloped by that means. ^^^1 Mr. Webster defines "overwhelm": "i. To cover over completely, as by a wave; to overflow and bury beneath; to submerge; to engulf; hence figuratively, to immerse and bear down; to overpower; to crush; to bury; to oppress, engross, etc., overpoweringly." The primary and ordinary meaning of both these words is to "come upon," not to "plunge in" ; and this is the idea expressed in all the examples given by Dr. Co- nant, where he translates baptidzo "whelm" or "over- whelm." The mode or action in all these examples is The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 97 that of "coming upon." There is no "dip" or "plunge" ar in any of these examples, whether the words are used in their literal or figurative sense; and Dr. Conant knew it. Take his Example 24, the "Oracle of the Sibyl, re- specting the city of Athens." His translation is: "A bladder, thou mayest be immersed (baptized) ; but it is not possible for thee to sink." The bladder is baptized, but it is not sunk! How can a bladder or anything else be immersed, that is not sunk or put under water? But our immersionist friends contend that to be baptized here means momentarily to be put under water and then being lifted out again, in contradistinction from sinking to the bottom. But this is not the figure. A bladder filled with wind and cast upon the sea is never immersed, even momentarily. It is tossed upon the waves, sprinkled by the spray, but it will not sink; it will ride the waves and keep on top. If a wave should dash over it, which is not at all probable, it would not be an immersion; the mode would be that of "dashing'*; the water would be dashed or thrown upon the bladder, and not the bladder ''plunged" into the water. ''Plunging," "dipping," or "immersion,'' even for a moment, is utterly out of the question in this case. But Dr. Conant reaches the climax when he trans- lates baptidzo and baptismos "undergo." (Mark x. 38-39 and Luke xii. 50.) On page 99 of "Baptizein" he says: "With this usage accords also the metaphorical sense of overwhelming suffering, found in Mark 10:38-39, 'Can ye undergo the immersion [baptism] that I must un- dergo?' and in Luke 12:50, *I have an immersion [bap- tism] to undergo'; a sense founded on the idea of total submergence, as in floods of sorrow." This is a complete giving up of the whole question of mode or action as to the meaning of baptidzo. Is undergo 98 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. a word of mode or action? Does it mean "to immerse"'? Why substitute it for baptidzo and haptismos in these pas- sages? Dr. Conant says: "The Greek word haptizein expresses nothing more than the act of immersion.'' How, then, can it be translated ''undergo''} Does undergo "express nothing more than the act of immersion"? Dr. Conant's defense of this translation is utterly futile, and only shows the subterfuges to which men will resort when pressed with difficulties which they cannot overcome. This is plainly an abandonment of the whole fundamental proposition of Dr. Conant, and of all other immersion- ists, that baptidzo is a specific word, always meaning to IMMERSE. Classical use utterly fails to sustain our immersionist friends, and must be abandoned by them as Dr. Carson abandoned the lexicons. Dr. Conant furnishes us with numerous examples which prove the utter fallacy of their position, that baptidzo is strictly a univocal word. As we have seen, many of his examples prove that it often expresses state or condition, without any reference to mode or action; while the mode or action which pro- duced that state or condition was by "coming upon," ''dashing or throwing on," or "pouring in or on." A more extended examination of Dr. Conant's examples would more fully show the same thing. But those examined are sufficient. Classical use gives its testimony unhes- itatingly against the position of immersionists, taking Dr. Conant's own examples. CHAPTER VII. The Jewish Use of "Baptidzo" and "Baptismos." Use in the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, and the New Tes- tament, Where John's Baptism and the Christian Ordinance Are Not Spoken of. To EVERY thoughtful mind, not wholly dominated by prejudice, the use of baptidzo and baptismos among the Jews from the time the Greek language was introduced into Palestine, after the conquest of Alexander, until the coming of Christ, and during His Hfe and the lives of the apostles, when John's baptism and the Christian ordi- nance are not spoken of, must settle the meaning of these terms when applied to John's baptism and the Christian ordinance. This is so obvious, as we have shown in the preceding chapter on the use of words as the sole au- thority in fixing their meaning, that we wonder that anyone would for a moment call it in question. We want to call attention again to the statement of Dr. HiNTON, an eminent Baptist writer, on this point, who says: "The question is. In what sense did Christ and His apostles use the term baptidzo, and what did they design the disciples, then and now, to understand by it?" The use the Jews made of these terms during the time specified gave them a fixed and definite meaning. That meaning was "to cleanse, to purify," for they were ap- plied to the various purifications of the Jews, and these purifications were specifically called baptisms; and when the Jews purified themselves, they were said to baptize themselves, or be baptized. 99 loo The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. The first example of its use in the Septuagint is Second Kings v. 14, which reads in our common version: "Then went he down, and dipped (baptized) himself seven times in Jordan." Ebaptisato is here translated "dipped." Immersionists claim that this is a case of un- doubted immersion; and many writers on our side con- cede this case to them. But we by no means admit that this is a case of immersion. We do not believe that Naaman immersed himself at all. The claim of im- mersionists in this case is : ^ .' 1. Baptidzo always means "to dip or immerse," and consequently Naaman immersed himself. 2. They claim that the Hebrew word tahal, pro- nounced "taval," always means "to immerse," and that baptidzo is its exact equivalent in Greek, and conse- quently the case of immersion is clearly made out. We have shown that their claim that baptidzo al- ways means to dip or immerse is utterly groundless, by the lexicons and by the classical use of the word. Dr. DiTZLKR, in his great work on "Baptism" (which I again want to commend to the reader as the most thorough and scholarly work on the subject ever published in this country, and which should be read by everyone who wishes a thorough, critical, philological, and conclusive argument on the subject), proves that their claim as to the meaning of the Hebrew word tabal is just as groundless as their claim as to the meaning of the Greek word bap- tidzo. He quotes a number of the greatest Hebrew lex- icons and scholars, showing that tabal has the general meaning of "to moisten," "to wet," "to dip," "to sprinkle." He quotes Hottenger, Schindler, Buxtorf, Stokius, K. Leigh, Castell, and Fiirst, all giving the same general meanings. Finally he says: Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. loi "FuKrst: We quote the latest and most scientific Hebraist that has Hved for ages, Rabbi Fiirst. The greatest Hebrew lexicon ever yet produced, restricted to the Hebrew and a few Chaldee words in the Bible Hebrew, 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 perfected lexicon of a much later date — last edition, 1867. "The first is a great folio, with complete concordance. The one in German (lexicon) , the other in lyacin. "FuBRST: Tabal, to moisten, to wet, to sprinkle, to immerse. The root is bal. Compare the words derived from the same root with kindred meanings — to flow, drop down, pour, pour water on, stream forth, sprinkle. Sep- tuagint, haptein, haptidzein, moluein. "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, tingare; then, 'to dip,' 'immerse.' The fundamental signification of the stem is 'to moisten,' 'to besprinkle.' " (Ditzler on "Baptism," pp. 290-296.) Having thus ascertained the meaning of the Hebrew word tabal, which is translated in the Septuagint by bap- tidzo, and in our common version by "dipped," we are prepared to examine the passage in the light of the Jewish method of cleansing the leper. Don't forget that every one of the lexicons referred to agrees with Fiirst in giving "to moisten," "to wet," "to sprinkle" as the first or primary meaning of tabal, and "to dip" or "immerse" as a secondary meaning. We must hold our immersionist friends to their own rule, that words must be taken in their first or primary meaning. Here a Syrian general comes to a Hebrew prophet to be cured of leprosy. The 102 TJie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. prophet says: "Go wash seven times in Jordan." In Hebrew rachats, translated in Greek by lousai. Both words are generic, and not specific, meaning "to wash" in a general sense, not ''to dip.'* The word louo is used to express the washing of Aaron and his sons in their conse- cration at the door of the Tabernacle. Exodus xxix. 4: "And Aaron and his sons thou shalt bring to the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation, and thou shalt wash [louseis] them with water." In Leviticus viii. 6 we read: "And Moses brought Aaron and his sons, and washed [elousen autois hudatt] them with water." Here louo can- not mean immerse, nor even a general washing of the body, for this was done at the door of the Tabernacle of the congregation, in the presence of all the people. (Le- viticus viii. 1-6.) It was a washing of their hands and feet, and a sprinkling of their garments. Now turn to the law of cleansing from leprosy (Leviticus xiv. 1-7), and we will see that it was required that the leper should be sprinkled seven times. The sprinkling was the es- sential part of the cleansing. "And thou shalt sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and thou shalt pronounce him clean." After he was thus sprinkled seven times, and pronounced clean, he was to shave off all his hair, and wash his clothes, and wash his body with water. In verse 8, in the Septua- gint, it reads, " Kal Xovo-crat ev tJSart " {"kai lousetai en huda- ti"), "and shall wash with water." The ev (en) is used with the dative of the instrument, and it is properly translated "with." Our common translation reads, "and wash himself in water." The pronoun "himself" is not in the Greek, and en hudati is not "m water," but ''with water." This is clearly shown in the next verse, which, in our common version, reads, "also he shall wash his flesh in water" ; but the Greek reads, " koI Aovcrerat t6 o-w/xa Tie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 103 avTovvSart" ("kai lousetai to sooma autou hudati"), "and shall wash his body with water." The simple dative hudati cannot properly be translated "in waTKR," but must be translated "with waTe:r." Verse 9 is speaking of the same thing as verse 8, and shows that in the cleansing of the leper there was no dipping, or immersion, or washing "m water'' ; but simply a washing of the body "with water," according to the Jewish method, by pouring the water over the body. 1. There was no command for Naaman to dip or im- merse himself. No Hebrew prophet would have ever given such a command, under such circumstances. 2. The law commanded the leper to be sprinkled seven times. Rachats, in Hebrew, and louo, in Greek, in ceremonial washing or cleansing, often mean "to sprinkle," or wash, or cleanse by sprinkling. 3. Naaman obeyed the prophet, and went and bap- tized himself seven times in Jordan ; that is, he took of the waters^'of the Jordan and purified himself seven times, according to the word of the prophet, and he was healed. Our immersionist friends depend solely on what they claim to be the exclusive meaning of the Hebrew word tabal and the Greek word baptidzo, which they claim always mean "to immerse," to get immersion in this case. But, as we have shown from the highest authority that these words do not necessarily mean "to immerse" — that tabal primarily means "to moisten" or "besprinkle," and that baptidzo at the time the Septuagint was trans- lated was applied by the Jews to all their various purifica- tions, which were usually done by sprinkling and never by immersion — ^we have taken the foundation from under their argment, and have thus taken this passage from them; the only passage from the Septuagint, the Apoc- rypha, and the New Testament, where baptidzo or bap- I04 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. tismos are used not with reference to John's baptism or the Christian ordinance, which they can claim with any semblance of reason. The next example of the use of haptidzo in the Sep- tuagint is found in the book of Judith, xii. 7, where she is said to have baptized herself in the camp, at the fountain of water. The passage reads : ** Koi Trapificivev iv rrj Trapefx/Sokr] 7;/xcpa5 rpet^^ kol c^ctto- pevero ^ara vv)(Ta ets rrjv cfxipayya ySeTvXouaj kol eBaTTTigero iv T^ TrapepL/SoXy] iirl ttjs Tr-qyr]'; tov vSaros." "And she abode in the camp three days, and went out in the middle of the night into the valley of Bethulia, and purified (baptized) herself in the camp, at the fountain of water." Here immersion is wholly out of the question. The language forbids it and the circumstances forbid it. Let us examine the case carefully. 1. She baptized herself AT (cTrt, epi), not in, the fountain of water. The preposition epi here forbids the idea of immersion. 2. The place forbids immersion. She could not and would not have immersed herself in a fountain or spring of water which was used to supply the camp with water for drinking and cooking. ^ 3. The baptism took place in the camp. The enemy were encamped in the valley all about the spring or fountain, and were coming to it at all times for water; and the guards were patrolling the camp at all times of the night, and had orders not to molest her in her devo- tions. Under such circumstances she would not have disrobed herself in so public a place, and she could not, with safety to her health, have immersed herself with her clothes on. This baptism was repeated for three suc- cessive nights. The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, 105 4. It was a purification preparatory for prayer, and was performed by washing the hands, and sprinkling the running water on the clothes. This was a custom among all nations preparatory to prayer or religious service or devotion. We know that the Jews built their proseucheus (houses of prayer) at the seaside, or by rivers or streams of running water, at which they could wash their hands and sprinkle themselves before prayer. Josephus tells us that Ptolemy prepared a place for the seventy translators of the Septuagint, "which was in a house near the shore." And he tells us that every "morning they came to the court and saluted Ptolemy, and then went away to their former place, where, when they had washed their hands and purified themselves, they betook themselves to the interpretation of the laws." ("Antiquities," Book XII., Chapter II., Section 13.) Again, in the decrees of those of Halicarnassus we read: "We have decreed, that as many men and women of the Jews as are willing so to do may celebrate their Sabbaths, and perform their holy offices according to the Jewish laws, and make their proseuchea at the seaside, according to the customs of their forefathers." ("An- tiquities," Book XIV., Chapter X., Section 23.) Clement of Alexandria refers to this custom of purifi- cation before going to prayer among all nations, thus: "That may be an image or picture of baptism which was handed down from Moses to the poets, thus: Penelope, having washed, and having on clean garments, sprinkled (hudranamene) , goes to prayer; and Telemachus, having washed his hands at the hoary sea, prayed to Athena." Here we have these purifications or baptisms, pre- paratory to prayer, by washing the hands and sprinkling the garments. In the case of Penelope, we have both washing and sprinkling; louoo, "to wash," and hudrainoo, io6 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, "to sprinkle." Penelope both washed and sprinkled. She did not immerse, for louoo does not mean "to im- merse"; she washed her hands, and probably her face, and sprinkled her garments. Telemachus only ''washed his hands." But they both baptized themselves before going to prayer. This, we see from the examples cited from Josephus, was a common practice among the Jews. This was prob- ably taken from the law requiring the priests, when they entered the Tabernacle, or afterwards the Temple, to perform their priestly functions, to wash their hands and their feet, or, as Josephus puts it (and he was himself a priest and knew what the law and custom was), 'Ho wash their hands and sprinkle their feet.'' ("Antiquities," Book III., Chapter VI., Section 2.) So Judith, according to this custom, went out into the valley to the fountain, and washed her hands and sprinkled the purifying element upon her garments, preparatory to going to prayer. The only reliance of our immersionist friends to make an immersion out of this case is "the force and meaning of baptidzo," which they claim always means "to dip or immerse," and consequently it must mean "to immerse" here, and they immerse Judith by the force and meaning of hapiidzo! But we have shown the utter fallacy of this position, and consequently it cannot help them out in this case. Some over-zealous immersionists have gone so far, in their eager desire to furnish Judith the facilities for im- mersion, that in their imagination they have constructed a large stone horse-trough, big enough for her to roll her- self into, and thus immerse herself! The imagination of our immersionist friends is exceedingly fruitful, when it comes to furnishing facilities for immersion where none exist; but we must remind them that Judith, a Jewess, The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 107 would have seriously objected to rolling herself in a pol- luted horse-trough to purify herself for prayer. The case of Judith must be given up by the immersionists ; it '-is squarely against them. The next example from the Septuagint we take from The Wisdom of Sirach, xxxiv. 40, which reads: " /3a7rTt|d/x€i/os airo v€)(pov koI Trakiv aTrro/xcvos avToO Tt (i)cf)eXr](Tev tu) Xovrpo) avrov? " "He that is baptized from a dead body, and toucheth it again, what profiteth his washing?" Dr. Conant trans- lates this passage: "Immersing (baptizing) himself from a dead body, and touching it again, what is he profited by his bathing?" But, unfortunately for Dr. Conant and our immer- sionist friends, there was no immersion, nor even bathing, in the purifying or baptizing from a dead body. Let us examine the law in regard to the purification from a dead body. The law concerning the water of separation, and its use in purifying from the dead, is found in Numbers xix. 11-20: "He that toucheth the dead body of any man shall be unclean seven days. He shall purify himself with it on the third day, and on the seventh day he shall be clean : but if he purify not himself the third day, then the seventh day he shall not be clean. 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; his unclean- ness is yet upon him. This is the law, when a man dieth in a tent: all that come into the tent, and all that is in the tent, shall be unclean seven days. And every open vessel, which hath no covering bound upon it, is unclean. And whosoever toucheth one that is slain with a sword in the io8 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. open fields, or a dead body, or a bone of a man, or a grave, shall be unclean seven days. And for an unclean person they shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purifica. tion for 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 the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or one slain, or one dead, or a grave : and the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, 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 even. But 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 not been sprinkled upon him; he is unclean." The entire process of the baptism or purification from a dead body is here given, and it consists simply of sprinkling the water of separation upon the unclean person on "the third day, and on the seventh day, and he shall be clean." There is no washing of his clothes, nor bathing of his "flesh in water." He is simply ''sprinkled on the third day, and on the seventh day," and he is clean. In verses 13 and 20 we have these words: "But the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify him- self, that soul shall be cut off from among the congrega- tion, because he hath defiled the sanctuary of the Lord: THE WATER OF SEPARATION HATH NOT BEEN SPRINKI^ED UPON him: he is unclean." But the question is asked, "Does not verse 19 say, 'And on the seventh day he shall purify himself, and shall wash his clothes, and shall bathe himself in water, and shall be clean at even'?" Yes; but who was it that The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 109 was to "wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water"? Was it the man who had the water of separation sprinkled upon him? or was it the man who sprinkled the water of separation? The connection and the law both clearly prove that it was the man who sprinkled the water of separation, and not the person or persons upon whom it was sprinkled that had to "wash his clothes, and bathe himself in water." In verses 18 and 19 we read: "And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels, and upon all the persons that were there, and upon him that touched a bone, or a grave. And the clean person shall sprinkle upon the unclean on the third day, and on the seventh day ; and on the seventh day he shall purify himsklF, AND WASH HIS CLOTHES, AND BATHE HIMSELF IN WATER, AND SHALL BE CLEAN AT EVEN." The language here fixes the meaning of this verse, and limits the washing of clothes, and bathing himself, to the man who sprinkled the water of separation. The reader will notice that the tent and all its furniture and all the persons in it were sprinkled; but the "washing of his clothes" and "bathing of his flesh" were limited to one person: "he shall WASH HIS CLOTHES, AND BATHE HIMSELF IN WATER." In addition to this, in verses 6, 7, and 8 we read: "And the priest shall take cedar wood, and hyssop, and scarlet, and cast it into the midst of the burning of the heifer. 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 even. And he that burneth her shall wash his clothes in water, and bathe his flesh in water, and shall be unclean until the even." In verse 21 we read: "And it shall be a perpetual statute unto them, that he that sprinklETh no The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. TH^ WATER OF SEPARATION SHAI^I^ WASH HIS CLOTHES; and he that toucheth the water of separation shall be un- clean until even." This fully settles the matter, and shows that the person or persons upon whom the water of separation was sprinkled were not required to wash their clothes or bathe their flesh in water ; but this requirement was limited to the man who sprinkled the water of separation. This is confirmed by Paul in Hebrews ix. 13, where he says : ' ' For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ASHES OF AN heifer SPRINKLING THE UNCLEAN, SANCTI- FiETH TO THE PURIFYING OF THE FLESH." Here the sim- ple sprinkling of the water of separation accomplished the purification, and no washing of clothes or bathing of the flesh in water was necessary to complete the purification. But if our immersionist friends could prove that the man upon whom the water of separation was sprinkled had to wash his clothes and bathe his flesh in water in order to complete his purification, which they cannot, still they could not get immersion in this case ; for in the Septuagint, where in our translation it reads, "and shall bathe his flesh in water," it is 'Vat Xovcrerai vSari" ("kai lousetai hudati*'), the simple dative hudati, "and shall wash with water." Neither ''body," nor "flesh," nor "himself," nor "bathe" is in the Greek text. It is simply, ''and shall wash with water." The Jews never plunged or immersed themselves in water to wash or bathe, unless it was in the sea or a large pool or running stream ; but they washed or bathed by pouring water over their bodies. If they had not running water to bathe in, they made it run by pouring it on their hands or person. So, whoever it was that washed his clothes and washed himself, there was no immersion; for the washing was with (lousetai hudati), not in water. The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, III Again, if baptidzo in this case doesn't mean simple sprinkling, but a general washing, it includes sprinkling, and thus becomes a word of denomination, and not a word of mode. So, whatever view we may take of it, it cannot mean "immerse" in this case. But we have proved conclusively that it means simply "to sprinkle;' and that the "baptism from a dead body" was a baptism by sprinkling, and by sprinkling alone. Dr. Conant had no authority whatever for trans- lating this passage, ''Immersing himself from a dead body" ; for the law of cleansing from a dead body and all the facts in the case are against him. Another thing I wish to call the attention of the reader to in this case is, that the sprinkling of the water of separation is called a washing! Baptize, wash, and sprinkle are all used to express the same thing— the purifying from a dead body. But we will bring this out more fully in another chapter. New Testament Usage, The first example we will cite from the New Testa- ment is Hebrews ix. 1-2: "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings [Greek, baptismois], and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." *'8ta<^opots /SaTTTio-^oZs " {"Diaphorois baptismois"). Here it is affirmed that there were "divers baptisms under the law of Moses. All the purifications under the law of Moses, whether by blood or water, or a mixture of both blood and water, are here called baptisms. It is a fact that while there were "divers baptisms" enjoined by the law, THBRK WAS NOT ONB SINGI^B PBRSONAI. IMMERSION ENJOINED BY THE LAW OF MosES. In debating with some of the ablest immersionists in the West, I have time and 112 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. again demanded of them to give me one single personal immersion required, or enjoined by the law of Moses, and no man has ever produced a single case. The nearest they have ever come to finding a case of immersion is where in our translation we have, "shall bathe himself" or "his flesh in water." But hathe is not immerse. It is a generic, and not a specific term. In Hebrew the word translated "bathe" is rachats, which means to wash in a general sense, and not to dip; and in the Greek it is louoo, to wash in a general sense. In nearly all the examples where we have, in our translation, ''bathe his flesh in water," in the Greek it is the simple dative, "lousetai hudati," ''wash with water," as in Leviticus xv. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, II, 13, 16, 18, 21, 22, 27; xvi. 4, 24, 26, 28;xvii. 15, 16. Lousetai hudati is not "immerse," nor can it be tortured into any such meaning. It is simply "wash WITH water"; the water is applied to the body, and not the body to the water. The baptisms of blood were al- ways by simple sprinkling. The baptism from a dead body was simple sprinkling. Every baptism or purifica- tion performed by a priest was by simple sprinkling; whether it was the baptism or purification of a leper or a leprous house, or any other purification of an unclean person or thing, it was never touched by the priest, or he would have become unclean. Paul declares that baptism was practiced from Moses to Christ ; that the law was made up largely of these bap- tisms, and they were performed by sprinkling! In Hebrews ix. 13-14 he says: "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of an heifer sprinkling the un- clean, 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, purge your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 113 Two things are here affirmed by Paul: i. That there were divers (many) baptisms practiced under the law. 2. That these baptisms were performed by sprink- ling! This surely ought to settle the question of the meaning of haptidzo in the New Testament. Here the argument is absolutely conclusive, and there is no pos- sibility of escape. Baptismos, as used by Paul in He- brews ix. 10, means "to sprinkle:," and nothing else, as defined by Paul himself. Now turn to Dr. Hinton's posi- tion on the use of this word in the New Testament, and see if it does not settle the controversy. 2. Our second example of the use of haptidzo in the New Testament is First Corinthians x. 1-2: "Moreover, brethren, I would not that you should be ignorant, how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed through the sea ; and were all baptized Unto Moses in the cloud and in the sea." Here was a literal baptism by the Almighty, a bap- tism with water, and a baptism by sprinkling ! The preposition ev {en) here should have been translated ' 'by," as it is dative of instrument. The Israelites were not in the cloud when they were baptized, but were under it, as Paul expressly states, and hence they could not have been baptized in it. They were neither "plunged" in the sea nor "overwhelmed" by it. They passed through it "on dry ground"; hence they were not im- mersed ''in the sea''\ The cloud and the sea were the in- struments which God used in baptizing them. They were baptized, but they were not immersed, neither were they overwhelmed. The Egyptians were immersed — that is, they were overwhelmed, but they were not baptized ! Here we can see the difference between baptism and immersion. 114 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. When I was a boy of perhaps twelve or fourteen years of age, I heard a Baptist preacher preach a sermon on "Baptism," and he undertook to make this a case of immersion! He took three books, and set two of them up on their edges, and laid the third on top of them, making a tunnel, and tunneled the children of Israel through it, and thus immersed them in figure ! I wanted to help him out a little by telling him that it was only half a dip, and that he would not accept that as baptism, for I had seen the pastor of that church, only a short time before that, baptize a young lady, and he did not get her head under the first dip, and he dipped her again, so as to make it a proper baptism ! But here, by his own showing, there was no water before nor behind nor underneath them, and consequently there was no immersion in the case. I wanted to help him out in another respect, and show that the cloud was not over the children of Israel while they were passing through the sea, but behind them, between them and the Egyptians. But I was only a boy, and I had to keep still ; but I kept up a mighty thinking, and he failed to convince me by a long way. When I preached my first sermon on "Baptism," in the spring of 1853, i^ the old Court-house, in Rolla, 111., I referred to that sermon, and showed how he illustrated it. I showed that no such tunnel existed, except in the preacher's imagination; that the cloud was not over them as they passed through the Red Sea, but behind them, between them and the Egyptians; and "the Lord drove back the sea by a strong east wind, all that night." As I was eating dinner a good old Hardshell Baptist brother came over to where I was stopping; and after I was through dinner, I stepped into the room where he was sitting, and he said to me: "Young man, you made a mistake to-day in your sermon." I said to him: "What The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 115 about?" He replied: "You said that the east wind drove the sea back. That is not true ; the power of God drove it back." I repHed: "That is true; but the Lord used the east wind as the instrument of His power." He repHed : "It does not say anything about the east wind." I said: "Let us get the Bible and see." I turned to Exodus xiv. 19-22, and read: "And the angel of God which went before the camp of Israel, removed and went behind them ; and the pillar of the cloud went from before their face, and stood behind them : and it came between the camp of the Egyptians and the camp of Israel ; and it was a cloud and darkness to them, but it gave light by night to these: so that the one came not near the other all the night. And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea upon the dry ground: and the waters were a wall unto them on their right hand, and on their left." The old gentleman drew on his glasses and said: "Let me see that." He read it carefully, so as to be sure it was there. Then he turned to the title-page to see if it was the right Bible. Then he handed it back to me, and said: "Is not that strange! I have read that I reckon twenty times, but never saw it that way before." I give this case to show how a preconceived opinion or prejudice can blind the eyes and minds of good men, so that they cannot see the plainest statements of God's Word. But how were the Israelites baptized? We have seen they were not immersed. God's Word tells us how this baptism was performed. In Psalm Ixviii. 7-10 we read: "O God, when Thou wentest forth before thy people, when Thou didst march ii6 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. through the wilderness: the earth shook, the heavens also dropped at the presence of God: even Sinai itself was moved at the presence of God, the God of Israel. Thou, O God, didst send a plentiful rain, whereby Thou didst confirm Thine inheritance, when it was weary. Thy con- gregation hath dwelt therein." What the Psalmist here calls a confirmation of Israel, "the inheritance and congregation of the Lord," Paul calls a "baptism unto Moses," an initiation into the Mosaic covenant. This confirmation, this baptism, was accomplished by "the plentiful rain" which God sent upon them. Here we have the baptism by the cloud. In Psalm Ixxvii. 14-20 we read: "Thou art the God that doest wonders : Thou hast declared Thy strength among the people. Thou hast with Thine arm redeemed Thy people, the sons of Jacob and Joseph. The waters saw Thee, O God, the waters saw Thee ; they were afraid : the depths also were troubled. The clouds poured out water : the skies sent out a sound : Thine arrows also went abroad. The voice of Thy thunder was in the heaven: the lightnings lightened the world: the earth trembled and shook. Thy way is in the sea, and Thy path in the great waters, and Thy footsteps are not known. Thou leddest Thy people like a flock by the hand of Moses and Aaron." Here we have the passage of the Red Sea described, and it is expressly declared: "The clouds pourKd out water." The baptism by the cloud was by the down- pour of rain upon the hosts of Israel as they passed through the sea. Josephus speaks of the storm and rain during the passage of the Red Sea that the Psalmist here describes. He says: "Showers of rain also came down from the sky, and dreadful thunder and lightning with flashes of fire." ("Antiquities of the Jews," Book II., The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 117 Chapter XVI., Section 3.) How was the baptism of the sea performed? It was not by immersion; that is cer- tain. There is but one possible way for it to have been done, and that was by the spray carried by the wind and SPRINKLED upon the hosts of Israel as they passed over on dry ground. No doubt this was done, for it would be but the natural and necessary effect of the wind on the waters- of the sea. Here again the argument is conclusive: Baptidzo, as used by Paul, means to sprinklK, as the spray, or to sprinklK or pour, as the rain from the clouds. In February, 1866, I had a debate with Rev. J. K Speer, who up to that time had been a prominent debater of the Disciple or Campbellite Church. I presented the foregoing argument in that debate. About thirty years afterward he called on me in Springfield, Mo. In the conversation reference was made to that debate, when he remarked: "That was the last debate I ever had. You advanced one argument in that debate I could not answer. I tried, but knew I failed. I made my brethren believe I had answered you when I knew I had not; and I could not stand that sort of dishonesty, and I have never had another debate from that day to this." I was curious to know what argument I had advanced that he knew he could not and did not answer. I knew of a good many arguments I had advanced that he did not and could not answer, but I wanted to know what one he knew he did not and could not answer. So I asked him ; and he re- plied: "Your argument from the tenth chapter of First Corinthians. You said: 'Here God baptized a whole nation, babies and all, and did it by sprinkling'!" He was an honest man, and knowing this argument could not be answered, he gracefully retired from the field. I have no better friend to-day than Rev. J. K. Speer, ii8 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 3. Our next example is Luke xi. 38: "And when the Pharisee saw it, he marveled that He had not first washed [tj^airTLdOr] (ebaptisthe) ] before dinner." Collate this passage with Mark vii. 3: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders." In Mark vii. 3 and Luke xi. 38 the same thing is spoken of — washing before eating. In Mark vLxj/iDvrai (nipsoontai) is used, which means "to wash the hands." In Luke ebaptisthe is used; yet the same identical thing is meant — the washing before eating. Washing of the hands is here called "baptizing the person." "He did not baptize Himself before dinner," for He did not "wash" His hands! The baptizing omitted by the Savior was the customary washing of the Jews before eating. This we know was not immersion, for Mark specifically tells us it was done by washing the hands! A passage from CIvBmenT of Alexandria, A. D. 190, throws light on this passage. He says : ' 'That may be an image or picture of baptism which has been handed down from Moses to the poets thus : . . . . 'And Telema- chus, having washed his hands at the hoary sea, prayed to Athena.' This was a custom of the Jews, to baptize themselves in this manner often upon a couch." Haas, "in this manner"; as Telemachus baptized himself, "by washing his hands." Whatever the nature of the bap- tism here spoken of, it was performed as Telemachus bap- tized himself, and was done by washing the hands. Pollakis shows that it was a baptism that was oft re- peated. The epi koitee, "upon a couch," shows that it was done while reclining upon the couch. We will ex- amine this passage more at length, and meet the objec- tions of immersionists to our rendering, in another place. But we have given its proper rendering here, which we The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 119 will show fully when we come to speak of the Patristic use of haptidzo. We ask, Was it the custom of the Jews to baptize themselves often upon the couch? Mark says it was their custom to wash their hands before eating; and we know from other writers that they washed their hands often, while and after eating. ThkodorKT was born A. D. 387, and died A. D. 450. On page 55 of his "Ecclesiastical History," speaking of the Empress Helena, the mother of Constantine the Great, he says: "This celebrated and admirable empress per- formed another action worthy to be remembered : she as- sembled a number of young women who had vowed per- petual virginity, and made them recline on couches, while she presented them with meat and with a beverage mixed with wine, and waited upon them; she then brought them water to wash their hands." This took place in Jerusalem. SozoMEN, in his "Ecclesiastical History," page 52, speaking of the same thing, says: "During her residence in Jerusalem, she assembled the sacred virgins at a feast, ministered to them at supper, presented them with food, POURED WATER ON THEIR HANDS, and performed other similar services customary on such occasions." Here Sozomen affirms it was customary in Jerusalem to POUR WATER ON THEIR HANDS while reclining on the couch at their meals, and Clement says it was a custom of the Jews to "baptize themselves in This manner [by washing their hands] upon a couch." The Pharisee marveled that Jesus did not baptize, by washing His hands before dinner. 4. Our next example is Mark vii. 4: "And when they come from the market, except they wash [bapti- soontat], they eat not. And many other things there be, I20 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, which they have received to hold, as the washing [hap- tismous] of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables." The word klinon (couches) here translated "tables," is not in the Sinaitic nor in Wescott and Hort. It is not supposable that the Jews always immersed themselves before eating after they came from the markets. The markets were the places of public resort as well as traffic, and the same person often went many times to the market-place the same day ; this would involve many im- mersions of the same person the same day. When we consider the fact that if a Jew immersed himself for pur- ification, or any part of himself, it must be in running water, not in a bath-tub, we see the utter impossibility of these baptisms being immersions; for very few of the Jewish people had sufficient running water near their homes to immerse themselves in. This precludes the pos- sibility of immersion. These baptisms when coming from the markets were a sprinkling of the clothes, in addition to the washing of their hands. This is made certain by pavTLorwvTai (rantisoontai) in the margin of the common Greek text; Tischendorf giving it the preference, and Wescott and Hort, the latest revis- ers of the Greek text, putting it in the text. Many of the ancient manuscripts have haptisoontai, and many have rantisoontai, thus showing that among the ancient Greek transcribers these words were used interchangeably. Dr. Ditzler remarks on this passage: "So well was it known that the baptisms of Mark vii. 4 were all by sprinkling, that the learned Greeks who duplicated man- uscripts translate haptisoontai, in that place rantisoontai, 'SPRINKLE themselves.' The two oldest copies of the New Testament known thus translate it. Seven others do so." (Ditzler on "Baptism," pp. 67-68.) The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 121 The baptisms when coming from the markets were unquestionably performed by sprinkling! Here we have haptisoontai and rantisoontai used by the Greeks themselves interchangeably to express the same act — purifying before eating. This certainly ought to settle the meaning of the word in the mind of every earnest seeker after the truth. But how were "the cups, pots, brazen vessels, and tables" baptized? Mr. Wesley, who was one of the best Greek scholars of his day, says: "The Greek word baptisms means in- differently either washing or sprinkling. The cups and pots were washed; the beds were sprinkled.'' (Wesley's "Notes.") In AliJ'ord's Greek Testament with Notes I find the following on this passage: "These baptismoi, as applied to klinon (meaning probably here 'couches,' triclinia, used at meals) , were certainly not immersions, but sprink- lings or affusions of water." These klinon were fre- quently elevations of the floor around the room, on which they reclined at their meals, and not such objects as ad- mitted of immersion. They could have been baptized only by sprinkling. But there is one fact that has been strangely over- looked by writers on this passage, and that is, that all metallic vessels which could "abide" the fire were purified, not by passing through the water, or being put into the water, but by passing through the fire and afterwards having the water of separation sprinkled upon them. This was the specific provision of the law. In Numbers xxxi. 23 we read: "Every thing that may abide the fire, ye shall make it go through the fire, and it shall be clean; nevertheless it shall be purified with the water of separation: and all that abideth not the fire ye shall make go through the water." The pots, if they were of iron, —9— 122 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. and the "brazen vessels" were baptized by sprinkling; they were purified by having the water of separation sprinkled upon them — and this is called the baptism of "pots and brazen vessels" ! Here haptismos is applied to the purification of per- sons and vessels, where, in regard to the persons and metallic vessels and couches, it unquestionably means SPRINKLE. In regard to cups and other vessels not of metal, it means to put into water, or pass through the water, and may imply immersion. A word that can be applied to these diJBferent modes of cleansing or purifica- tion cannot specifically mean to dip or immerse. This is so evident that a child can see it. There is no possible chance for immersionists to escape here. 5. The final passages in the New Testament where haptidzo and haptismos are used, and not applied to John's baptism nor the Christian ordinance, are Matthew XX. 22-23, Mark x. 38-39, and Luke xii. 50, where they are applied to the sufferings of Christ. The American Bible Union, with Dr. Conant at its head, about fifty years ago, published a translation of the New Testament, pro- fessedly to always translate haptidzo and haptismos "im- merse" and "immersion." Dr. Conant, in his Preface to his "Baptizein," says: "The Bible Society for which I have the honor to labor has adopted it as its fundamental principle, to be applied to all its versions, whether for the home or foreign field, the faithful translation of every word capable of being expressed in the language of the version. This is, in the view of its managers and members, the only principle justly claiming to be catholic, and from its nature admits of no KxcbpTions. "It seems proper, therefore, in presenting to the public a revised English version of the New Testament in The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 123 which this word is rendered into EngHsh, to show that the translation expresses its True and only import, and not a sectarian translation." It is apparent from this statement of Dr. Conant that the American Bible Union set out with the determin- ation to always translate these words "immerse" and "immersion," as that is their "true and only import." But in the above passages they had not the face or hardi- hood to carry out their "fundamental principle"! In Matthew xx. 22-23, they eliminate these words. For this they had the authority of Tischendorf. But in Mark X. 38-39 they translate: "Are ye able to drink the cup that I drink, and to endure the immersion which I ENDURE? And they said to him. We are able. And Jesus said to them, Ye shall indeed drink the cup that I drink, and endure the immersion which I Endure." Here they translate haptidzo four times "endure," or, rather, they substitute "endure" for ''baptize'* \ And yet Dr. Conant tells us "its true and only import" is immerse! Do "endure" and "immerse" have the same imports "Jesus said unto them, Ye know not what ye ask: can ye drink of the cup that I drink of? and be baptized with the baptism that I am baptized with? And they said unto him, We can. And Jesus said unto them. Ye shall indeed drink of the cup that I drink of; and with the baptism that I am baptized withal shall ye be baptized." Why did they not stick to their fundamental rule, which was "to make no exceptions," and translate this passage, * ' Can ye be immersed with the immersion I am immersed WITH?" and "Ye shall be immersed with the immersion I am immersed with"? Or why did they not translate it, "Are ye able to be immersed in the immersion I am immersed in?" and "Ye shall be immersed in the im- 124 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. mersion I am immersed in"? This translation would have been consistent with their "fundamental rule," but it would not have been consistent with common sense. Yet it would have been as sensible and as near the truth as their translation of Matthew iii. 1 1 , " He will immerse you IN the Holy Spirit and fire," or Acts i. 5, "But ye shall be immersed in the Holy Spirit, not many days hence." But Dr. Conant and his fellow-laborers knew that immersion is not something to be immersed with, and equally well did they know that immersion is not some- thing to be immersed in. And hence they must find a way out of the difficulty, even if it was by translating their word that has "but one True and only meaning," and that meaning is ''immerse,'' by a word that has no connection with immersion, or any other word of mode. In Luke xii. 50 they translate baptidzo "undergo": "But I have an immersion to undergo; and how I am straitened till it be accomplished!" Why did they not translate this passage according to their rule, "I have an immersion to be immersed with," or "I have an immersion to be immersed in"? Mr. Campbell, in his "Living Oracles," translates Mark x. 38-39: "Can ye drink such a cup as I am to drink, and undergo an immersion like that which I must UNDERGO? They answered. We can. Jesus said to them, You shall indeed drink such a cup as I am to drink, and undergo an immersion like that which I must UNDERGO." Luke xii. 50 he translates: "I have an im- mersion to UNDERGO, and how I am pained till it be accomplished!" These translators give two definitions to their word which has "but one true and only meaning," and that "to immerse/' which no lexicon on earth gives jt; and The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 125 which have no reference whatever to mode or action! They were coined to meet an emergency, but they ut- terly overthrow the position of immersionists, who by these translations admit that baptidzo is not a word of mode or action, but a word of denomination— expressing a thing done, but not the manner of doing it. But there was no immersion in Christ's baptism of sufferings. His sufferings "came upon Him," were "laid on Him." (See Isaiah liii. 4, 5, 6.) Hear the prophet as he describes this baptism of sufferings as they came upon the Savior of men in Gethsemane and onCalvary : "Surely He hath borne our griefs, and carried our sorrows: yet we did esteem Him stricken, smitten of God, and afflicted. But He was wounded for our transgressions, He was bruised for our iniquities: the chastisement of our peace was upon Him ; and with His stripes we are healed. All we like sheep have gone astray; we have turned every one to his own way; and the Lord hath laid on Him the iniquity of us all." There was no immersion in Christ's baptism of suf- ferings, nor anything that has the slightest resemblance to immersion; but all to the contrary. "Laid on," "stricken," "smitten," "stripes," "shall bear," etc., etc., show that there was no immersion in the baptism of suf- ferings that came upon the Savior in the hour of His agony for the sins of the world. The mode or action of this baptism was the same as the mode or action of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which was poure^d out, fell ON, CAME UPON, was SHED FORTH, CtC, CtC. We have now gone over all the examples of the use of baptidzo and baptismos in the Septuagint and the New Testament, where John's baptism and the Christian or- dinance are not spoken of; and we have not found a single case of immersion, except, possibly, in the baptism 126 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. of the cups and pots that were not of metal. In every other case they mean unmistakably to sprinkle, or to pour upon, never to immerse. This ought to settle their meaning when applied to John's baptism and the Chris- tian ordinance. CHAPTER VIII. The Forck and Meaning of the Prepositions Used WITH "Baptidzo." Great stress is put upon the meaning of the prep- ositions CIS {eis), ev (en), and ck (ek) by our immersionist friends. They contend that eU (eis), when used with verbs of motion, always means motion into a place ; that cv (en) always means "in" when used in reference to baptism; and that ck (ek) always means "out of." We admit that eis frequently means "into," but not always. Liddell and Scott give as its radical signification: "Di- rection towards, motion to, on, or into.'' Pickering says : "The radical signification is, direction towards, motion to, into, or on, into;' etc., etc. Groves defines it: "m, into, to, unto," etc., etc. Not one of these lexicons give "into" or "motion into" as the radical or primary meaning of eis. This preposition occurs 1,742 times in the New Testament, and is translated 510 times "into," if I made no mistake in counting, and I was very careful; 1,232 times it is translated "in," "to," "unto," "to- wards," "for," "against," etc., etc. In less than one- third of its occurrences it is translated "into." According to the rule insisted on by immersionists, that words are always to be understood in their ''radical or primary meaning, unless their connection shows that some other meaning must be attached to them," we must understand eis to mean "motion towards," and not "into." 127 128 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. When the Greeks wished to specifically express motion into a place by the force of the preposition eis, they used it both before and after the verb. Instances of this often occur, as ''eiselthen eis," or " eiserchomai eis." We have numerous examples of this usage, both in the New Testament and in the Septuagint. We have a striking example of this usage in John's account of the resurrection of our Lord: John xx. 4, "and came first to (eis) the sepulchre," ("elthe protos eis mnemion")] verse 6, "Then cometh Simon Peter fol- lowing him and he went into the sepulchre," "eiselthen eis to mnemion." We have three examples of this usage in Acts ix. : verse 6, "Arise, go into the city," "eiselthe eis"; verse 8, "but they led him by the hand, and brought him into Damascus," "m egagon eis"; verse 17, "And Ananias went his way and entered into the house," ''Apelthe de Ananias kai eiselthen eis." In Matthew xviii. 3 we read: "Except ye be converted and become as little children, ye shall not enter into [eiselthete eis] the kingdom of heaven." John iii. 5: "Ye cannot enter into [eiselthein eis] the kingdom of God." Mark ii. i : "Again He entered into [eiselthen eis] Capernaum." Matthew v. 20: "Ye shall in no case enter into [eis- elthete eis] the kingdom of heaven." We might go on and fill page after page with such examples, but it is not nec- essary ; these are sufficient to show the usage. The same usage obtains in the Septuagint. In Ex- odus XXX. 20: "When they go into (eisporeuontai eis) the Tabernacle of the congregation." In verse 21 we again have eisporeuontai eis. Leviticus x. 9: "When ye go into [eisporeuesthe eis] the Tabernacle." Exodus xiv. 22: "And the children of Israel went into the midst of the sea," ' ("i^'a^ eiselthon oi uoio Israel eis meson tees thalases"). Second Kings xix. i : "And went into [m- The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 129 elthen eis] the house of the Lord." Psalm c. 4: "Enter into [eiselthate eis] his gates." These examples might be multiplied indefinitely, but these are sufficient to show the usage. In not a single example of its use with bap- tidzo do we have this usage. This is a most significant fact. The preposition ev (en) is defined by Liddell and Scott thus: "Radical significance, a being or remain- ing within, and so half way between eU [eis] and ck [ek]. Of place, of all situated within a given space, in, on, at; (2) on, upon; (3) enclosed within, surrounded by; (4) on, at or by; (5) in the nnmber of, amongst; (6) within one's reach or power, on one's hands; (7) in presence of; (8) in re- spect of; (9) in accordance, unison with. III. Of the in- strument or means, . . . strictly, to grasp it, so it is in the hand; and so in almost all cases the original sig- nificance is traced, to put in the fire and burn, in fetters and bind, etc., thus ev o6TepoL €15 TO v8(i)p [katebeesan amphoteroi eis to hudor] in Acts 8 :38 does neither necessarily nor probably mean, 'They DESCEJNDKD INTO THE WATER.' This conclusion is rendered nearly certain by the exact counterpart or antithesis of this expression, which is found in verse 39, where, after the baptism, it is said, 'avef^rjaav Ik tov -uSaros' l^anebeesan ek touhudatos'], 'they went up from the water.' We have seen (page 320) that dva^acvwlanabaino] is never employed in the sense of emerging from a liquid substance. The preposition ck [ek] here would agree well with this idea, AIvTHOUGH IT BY NO MEANS OF NECESSITY IMPLIES IT ; but dmjSatVw [anabaino] forbids thus to construe it. As then to go up FROM the water is to ascend the bank of a stream, pool, or fountain, so to go down To the water is to go down the bank of such stream, fountain, or pool, and to come TO the water. Whether the person thus going down els TO vBiop [eis to hudor] enters it or not must be designated in some other way than by this expression, which of itself leaves the matter in uncertainty. "I have another remark to make on VareyST/o-av a/xcf>6Tepoi els rb v8wp' ['katebeesan amphoteroi eis to hudor'], 'they both went down to the water.* This is, that if Kare^rjaav els to 172 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. vSu)p [katebeesan eis to hudor] is meant to designate the action of plunging or being immersed into the water, as a part of the rite of baptism, then was PhiHp baptized as well as the eunuch; for the sacred writer says they both went into the water. Here, then, must have been a rebaptism of Philip; and, what is at least singular, he must have baptized himself as well as the eunuch. "All these considerations together show that the going down to the water and the going up from the water constituted no part of the rite of baptism itself; for Philip did the one and the other just as truly as the eunuch. As, then, neither the language allows us to con- strue the passage as signifying immersion and emersion, nor the circumstances permit us to interpret the passage thus, we have no good and sufficient grounds here to con- sider this example as making any determination with re- spect to the mode of the baptismal rite." (Stuart on "Baptism," pp. 94, 95, 96, 97.) This is pretty good from a book published by Dr. Graves, and circulated as an immersion document! Here remark that this great Greek scholar says: "As, then, neither the language allows us to construe the pas- sage as signifying immersion and emersion, nor the cir- cumstances permit us to interpret the passage thus," etc. This great author, who stands so high in the estimation of our immersionist friends, declares "that neither the language nor the circumstances permit us to interpret this passage" as favoring immersion! The plain facts in the case are these: Here is a de- vout heathen riding along the road, reading the prophecy of Isaiah concerning Christ. A preacher of the gospel is walking along the same road. The Holy Spirit com- mands him to go and join himself to the chariot in which TJie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 173 this devout heathen is riding. He asks the preacher to explain to him what he is reading. The preacher pro- ceeds to do this, and to preach Christ to him. He ac- cepts Christ as his Savior; and then the preacher evi- dently explains the subject of baptism to him. As they drive along they come to "a certain water." What kind of "a water" we do not know, nor do we care. It may have been a stream, a pool, or a fountain. We do not care whether there was much or little water. It does not take "much water" to baptize in any mode. And he says: "See, here is water," or, "See water; what doth hinder me to be baptized?" Showing that baptism had been spoken of and explained to him by the preacher. He orders the driver to stop the chariot, and they both get out and go down to the water, and the preacher bap- tizes him. Doubtless he kneels down, and the preach- er dips up the water with his right hand and pours or sprinkles the water on his head, and they come up from the water, and the preacher is "caught away by the Spirit of the Lord," and the man goes on his way rejoicing. This is what any Methodist preacher would do under like circumstances. No preparation is made for immer- sion; no change of clothes either before or after the bap- tism, as that would have been necessary only in case of immersion. Don't forget that this is the only instance in the New Testament where it is said "they both went down to the water," and under the circumstances that was the most natural thing to do. In confirmation of Prof. Stuart's position that *'kata- baino eis" could mean no more than "going down to the water," remember lyiddell and Scott's definition of eU (eis) : * * Radical signification, direction towards, motion 174 Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. to, on, or into,'' putting ''motion to'' first, in accord with its radical signification, "dirKCTion towards." Pickering gives it the same signification. Liddell and Scott is but an English translation of the great German Passow; so Prof. Stuart is sustained by the highest au- thority. It is thus proved that the expression ''kata- baino eis" exhausts itself when it takes the person 'Ho the water," and not "into it." Our interpretation thus stands beyond impeachment. It must not be forgotten that in the same prophecy from which the eunuch was reading, and only eight verses before the one he was reading, it is said of the Christ: "So shall He sprinkliS many nations." (Isaiah lii. 15.) We know that Philip had explained baptism to the eunuch, and in the text from which he was preaching he found sprinkle, and that the Messiah should sprinkle the nations. This is certainly a reference to baptism, and Philip preached baptism to him from a text that declared he should sprinklk the nations! The baptism preached was sprinkling, and the baptism practiced was the same. It would have been strange indeed if Philip had preached baptism by sprinkling, and then turned around im- mediately and practiced it by immersion ! But our immersionist friends tell us that the word translated "sprinkle" in this passage means "to astonish," and is so translated in the Septuagint. It is true that the Septuagint translates nazah "to astonish, or amaze," in Isaiah lii. 15; but we cannot correct the original He- brew by an imperfect Greek translation. This word is used many times in the Old Testament, and is translated "sprinkIvK" in every other example of its use, and is translated "sprinkle" here in our English translation. Dr. Rice, in his debate with Mr. Campbell, says: "But the fact is stated by the Rev. A. Barnes, after careful ex- The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, 175 amination of all the places in which the Hebrew word translated 'sprinkle' occurs in the Bible, that in every instance it means to sprinki^e." ("Rice and Campbell Debate," p. 226.) Paul's Baptism. The next example of baptism in the New Testament that we will examine is that of Paul, Acts ix. 18: "And immediately there fell from his eyes as it had been scales ; and he received sight forthwith, and arose and was baptized. According to this account, Paul was baptized in the house, standing up. There was no leaving the house, and running out to the rivers Abana or Pharpar, and no preparation for change of clothing preparatory to immer- sion, but a simple "standing up" while the baptism was performed. All the circumstances here are against the idea of immersion and in favor of affusion. No torturing of this passage can make it mean anything else than what it says: "Paul stood up and was baptized." The word avadTCLs (anastas), here translated "arise," means to "stand up, arise," etc. The commonly received text reads : * 'irapa- ;(p77/xa Kttt dva(TTa<: e/SaTTTLo-Or]" {" parachrema kai anastas ebap- tisthe"), "and immediately he stood up and was bap- tized." Tischendorf omits the ''parachrema," and uses only ''kai anastas ebaptisthe," "and he stood up and was baptized." But this makes no difference; they both say, ' *he stood up and was baptized." In Paul's own account of his baptism (Acts xxii. 16) he says Ananias said to him : ' ' And now why tarriest thou ? Arise and be baptized, and wash away thy sins, calling on the name of the Lord." ''Avao-ra? (SdirTLo-al" {"Anastas baptisai"), "Stand up and be baptized." Anastas is from, anistemi, which Liddell and Scott define, "to make stand 176 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, up, raise up, set up." Other lexicons agree with Liddell and Scott. Everything in the circumstances connected with the baptism of Paul prove that he was baptized in the house, standing up. In Paul's account of his bap- tism, baptism was in some way connected with the washing away of his sins. Sins are washed away only by the blood of Christ; but baptism is the outward emblem of the washing away of sins. In the chapter on "Baptism a Washing" we show that sins are washed away, in or by the blood of Christ, only by sprinkling! There is no other mode in the Scriptures of washing away sins but that of SPRiNKUNG the blood of Christ. What would be more natural or appropriate than that the emblem of this washing away of sins should conform in mode to the real washing? And this is what was done while Paul was standing in the house of Judas. The Baptism of Cornelius, His Household, and His Friends. The next example of Baptism in the New Testament we will examine is that of Cornelius, his household, and his friends, who were gathered in his house to hear the words of Peter. Acts x. 46-48: "Then answered Peter, Can any man forbid water, that these should not be bap- tized, which have received the Holy Ghost as well as we? And he commanded them to be baptized in the name of the Lord." Here again we have a baptism with all the circum- stances against the idea of immersion. The baptism of the Holy Ghost, the rkai^ baptism, they had just re- ceived, and it was performed by pouring ! Peter, giving an account of this baptism (Acts xi. 15-16), says: "And as I began to speak, the Holy Ghost FELL on Them, as on us AT THE beginning. Then remembered I the word of The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 177 the Lord, how that He said, John indeed baptized with water, but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost." There is no question of this being the baptism of the Holy Ghost. All admit it. Those who deny that the baptism of the Holy Ghost remains in the Church admit that Cor- nelius, his household, and his friends were baptized with the Holy Ghost. When Peter witnessed this baptism of the Holy Ghost, this "pouring out" and "faIvLING on" them of the Holy Ghost, it immediately brought to his mind the words of Jesus. ( Acts i. 5 . ) How did this baptism of the Holy Ghost, this "pouring out" and this ' 'palling on" of the Holy Ghost, suggest to Peter's mind the words of the Lord concerning John's baptism if John baptized by immersion? Would the pouring out of the Holy Spirit upon the people suggest to the mind of an immer- sionist John's baptism? Does not the recollection of the words of the Lord concerning John's baptism and the promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost prove that both John's baptism and the fulfillment of Christ's promise in the baptism of the Holy Ghost were by "pouring out," "palling upon," and not by an immersion into? Would Peter, immediately after witnessing this baptism of the Holy Ghost by pouring, command them to be immersed in token of this baptism by pouring ? The thought is too incongruous to be entertained for a moment. Unques- tionably Peter, in the baptism by water of Cornelius, his household, and his friends, followed the example set him by the Lord in baptizing them with the Holy Ghost, and had the water poured upon them in token of the baptism of the Holy Ghost, which they had just received. This is the only rational conclusion to which we can come. 178 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. The Baptism of Lydia and Her Household. The next account of baptism in the New Testament is that of Lydia and her household, Acts xiv. 13-15, which reads as follows: "And on the Sabbath we went out of the city by a river-side, where prayer was wont to be made ; and we sat down, and spake unto the women which resorted thither. And a certain woman named Lydia, a seller of purple, of the city of Thyatira, which worshipped God, heard us : whose heart the Lord opened, that she at- tended unto the things which were spoken of Paul. And when she was baptized, and her household, she besought us, saying. If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house, and abide there. And she con- strained us." This place of prayer, or proseuche, was a large building, like an amphitheater, without roof, and seated, where the Jews and other devout persons went for prayer and worship where there was no synagogue. They were usually built by the sea, or by rivers, so that the worship- ers could have the means of purification before prayer, either by sea-water or running water. These purifica- tions were not immersions^ but washings of their hands and sprinkling water upon their garments, as "Penelope sprinkled her clean garments before going to prayer, and Telemachus washed his hands at the hoary sea, before praying to Athena," and as Josephus tells us the trans- lators of the Septuagint did — purified themselves every morning, by washing their hands at the sea. This custom of the Jews of purifying themselves before prayer or worship doubtless had its orign in the requirement of the law concerning the purification of the priests before en- tering the Tabernacle to offer sacrifices, to wash their hands and their feet (Exodus xxx. 18-21) ; or, as Josephus The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, 179 says, "to wash their hands and sprinkle their feet," and he was himself a Jewish priest, and knew what their customs were. The idea that they immersed themselves before entering the proseuche for prayer is preposterous. This was a place of public gathering for both men and women. There were no dressing-rooms in which to change their clothes after purification, and they could not immerse themselves naked at a promiscuous gath- ering. Immersion was not thought of. These purifica- tions were by the ordinary method among both the Jews and heathen — by washing thkir hands and sprinkung water on their garments. Lydia was awakened and converted under the preaching of Paul in the proseuche, and was baptized on the spot, before returning to the city; and after she was baptized, Luke says, "She besought us, saying, If ye have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and abide there. And she constrained us." She took them home with her from the proseuche, and they re- mained with her as guests while they remained in the city ; and when they got out of the prison, they went to Lydia's house, and there had their final meeting with their con- verts before leaving the city. All the circumstances indicate that she was not im- mersed. She certainly did not take a change of clothing with her to the proseuche. She as certainly would not have returned to the city and to her house in the city in her wet clothes, as she would have been compelled to do if she had been immersed. She was plainly not immersed, but baptized by affusion at the river's bank, where she had purified herself before going to prayer. i8o The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, The Baptism of the Jailer and His Family. The last example of baptism recorded in the New Testament is that of the Philippian jailer. The full ac- count of the conversion and baptism of the jailer and his family is given in Acts xvi. 23-33 • "And when they had laid many stripes upon them, they cast them into prison, charging the jailer to keep them safely: who, having re- ceived such a charge, thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks. And at midnight Paul and Silas prayed, and sang praises unto God: and the prisoners heard them. And suddenly there was a great earthquake, so that the foundations of the prison were shaken: and immediately all the doors were opened, and every one's bands were loosed. And the keeper of the prison awaking out of his sleep, and seeing the prison doors open, he drew out his sword, and would have killed himself, supposing that the prisoners had been fled. But Paul cried with a loud voice, saying, Do thyself no harm : for we are all here. Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, and brought them out, and said. Sirs, what must I do to be saved? And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and thou shalt be saved, and thy house. And they spake unto him the word of the Lord, and to all that were in his house. And he took them the same hour of the night, and washed their stripes ; and was baptized, he and all his, straightway." Here we have a baptism in the middle of the night, in a prison, immediately after the conversion of the jailer and his family: "And was baptized, he and all his, straightway." The word here translated "straightway" is irapaxpifJM (parachrema) y and is defined by Liddell and Scott: "On the spot, forthwith, straightway.*' Pickering Tie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, i8i defines it : ' 'Immediately, forthwith, at the present moment; as it were in the very act:' Groves defines it: ''Imme- diately, directly, instantly, presently:' Parkhurst defines it: "Immediately, instantly:' Greenfield defines it : "On the spot, instantly, immediately:' This word allows no time to go out of the prison, down to the river, in quest of water sufficient to immerse in. Here was clearly a baptism, like that of the Pentecost and that of Paul, where immersion was utterly out of the question. Some of the water brought to wash the blood from the backs of Paul and Silas was doubtless used to baptize their new converts. But the imagination and ingenuity of immersionists are indeed wonderfully fruitful in devising expedients to help out the cause of immersion in the difficult places in the Scriptures, where the plain language of the Word of God puts immersion out of the question, as in this case. They ask the question, apparently in triumph: "Does not the Scripture say that the jailer brought them out?'* Certainly it does, but does that mean that he brought them out of the prison? Certainly it does not. Read again the narrative given by Luke carefully, and you will see that when Paul and Silas were put m prison, the jailer was "charged to keep them safely." He, having received that charge, "thrust them into the inner prison, and made their feet fast in the stocks." It was from this "inner prison," into which he had "thrust them," that he "brought them out" into that part of the prison where he had received them, and not out of the prison. It was here that the preaching, washing their stripes, and the baptisms took place. It was out of this apartment of the prison, into his own house (or apartments) that he brought them after the baptism, and "set meat before them." The house (or apartments) of the jailer was like i82 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, the houses or apartments of many of our jailers, a part of the prison. The jailer on awakening could see the prison doors were open, and Paul from the "inner prison" could see the jailer drawing his sword to kill himself, and the jailer could hear him as he cried, "Do thyself no harm: for we are all here." This shows that the jailer's house (or apartments) was so situated that, the doors being open, as they were at that moment, a man from the dungeon could see into the jailer's house. The jailer could not have taken them out of the prison if he had so desired, for the guards who were stationed outside would have arrested him, and his life would have paid the forfeit. (Acts v. 23 and xii. 19.) So this attempt to get them out of the prison and down to the river fails. Immersion could not have been accomplished by this means. But the genius of some of our immersionist friends has invented a bath-tub in the prison large enough to im- merse the jailer and his family in! But they have for- gotten that this was a jail, and not a palace or public bath-house. Every effort of our immersionist friends to get the jailer and his family immersed fails them, and they must accept the plain statement of the Word of God, that they were baptized in the jail, on the spot. We have gone through the history of the New Tes- tament baptisms, and we have found that the circum- stances and the language used in every case stand against the idea of immersion, while in some of the cases, as in the case of the three thousand on the day of Pentecost, and the baptism of Paul and the jailer, both the language used and the circumstances utterly forbid the idea of immersion. We hold to the unity of the mode or action of baptism, both of the baptism of^the Holy^Ghost and of water. We The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 183 do not believe that there were different modes practiced by the apostles. When we prove that in one or more cases bap- tism was unquestionably performed by affusion, we prove that this was the practice in every case. We do not believe that Christ baptized with the Holy Ghost by one mode and commanded us to baptize with water by another and totally different mode. We know that Christ always bap- tizes WITH the Holy Ghost by pouring out, falwng on, or SHEDDING FORTH ; never by plunging into or immer- sion. No fact in the Bible is more clearly proven by the express declarations of the Word of God than is this. No fact is more positively stated by the Word of God than that the washing away of sins by the blood of Christ is always done by sprinkling, and not by plunging or im- mersion. Baptism is the outward symbol or emblem of the purification of the soul from sin by the blood of Christ, and the regeneration of the nature by the Holy Ghost. This twofold cleansing of the soul in the process of salvation, which is symbolized in baptism, is beautifully expressed by Paul in his Epistle to Titus, iii. 5-6: "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but ac- cording to His mercy He saved us, by the washing of re- generation, and renewing of the Holy Ghost: which He shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Savior; that being justified by His grace, we should be made heirs according to the hope of eternal life." The "washing of regeneration" is the washing away of past sins; the "renewing of the Holy Ghost" is the re- generation of the nature, the impartation of the new life. The result of this "washing" and "renewing" is salva- tion, purification from inward and outward sin, and bap- tism symbolizes this purification, this salvation. 184 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. Peter most beautifully and forcefully sets forth the relation of baptism to spiritual cleansing or purification in First Peter iii. 21: "The like figure whereunto even baptism doth also now save us (not the putting away of the filth of the flesh, but the answer of a good conscience toward God), by the resurrection of Jesus Christ." This is an express declaration that baptism does not save us by putting away sin. He expressly declares that sin is put away through atonement. (First Peter ii. 24.) But it is "the answer of a good conscience." It does not make the conscience good. That is done through the cleansing blood and renewing Spirit. Baptism is the out- ward answer to this inward purification. This is the re- lation baptism sustains to spiritual cleansing and purifi- cation throughout both Testaments ; and reason demands that there should be a correspondence in the mode as well as in the design of baptism. CHAPTER XII. Buried in Baptism. When our immersionist friends are driven from every other position, they fall back on Romans vi. i-6 and Co- lossians ii. 11-12 as their impregnable fortress, and say, "Does not Paul call baptism a burial, and how can we have a burial without immersion?" and they think their cause is won. After long and patient investigation, I have become fully convinced that there is no allusion to water baptism in these passages, and consequently no reference to the mode of baptism by immersion. Com- mentators usually assume that in these passages there is an allusion to the ancient practice of baptism by immer- sion. But ancient as that practice may have been, after the most painstaking examination of the subject for more than half a century, I can find no evidence that it was as ancient as the days of the apostles. There is certanily no evidence of this practice in the Scriptures, as we have seen and shall see as we proceed; there is no evidence of it in the earliest history of the Church. The trouble with commentators generally has been, they have not given the baptism of the Holy Ghost the prominent place that it holds in the Holy Scriptures. In- deed, immersionists generally contend that the baptism of the Holy Ghost ceased altogether after the days of the apostles. In fact, they hold that there have been only two examples of the baptism of the Holy Ghost in the whole history of the Church of Christ — that of Pente- cost and of the household of Cornelius. They seem to 185 —13— 1 86 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. forget that John's testimony to Jesus was, that His espe- cial ofl&ce was to baptize with the Holy Ghost, as his was to baptize with water. In John i. 33-34 we read: "And I knew him not: but He that sent me to baptize with water, the same said unto me, Upon whom thou shalt see the Spirit descending and remaining on him, the same is He which baptizeth with the Holy Ghost. And I saw, and bare record that this is the Son of God." Here it is plainly affirmed that the mission of Christ was to baptize with the Holy Ghost. And in Matthew iii. 11, Mark i. 8, and Luke iii. 16 John declares: "I indeed baptize you with water, . . . He shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost." The same YOU that I have baptized with water, Hk shall baptize with the Holy Ghost. This is plainly a promise of the baptism of the Holy Ghost to all believers in all time, and not a few on the day of Pentecost and in the house of Cornelius. If the baptism of the Holy Ghost was con- fined to a few select ones, on these two occasions, then this promise has never been fulfilled. Again, Peter on the day of Pentecost declared that the baptism of the Holy Ghost received on that day was the beginning of the fulfillment of Joel's prophecy : "And it shall come to pass in the last days, saith God, I will pour out of my Spirit upon all flesh." Here the baptism of the Holy Ghost, received on the day of Pentecost, is promised to all believers in all ages, and not the privilege of a select few. In Hebrews vi. 1-2 we have "the doctrine of bap- tisms" among the principles of J" the doctrine of Christ" : "Therefore, leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection ; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 187 of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment." These six principles of the "doctrine of Christ" are permanent and abiding in the Church. Baptisms, like repentance, faith, laying on of hands, resurrection of the dead, and eternal judgment, are permanent and abiding principles. In First Corinthians xii. 13 Paul affirms that all be- lievers are put into Christ by the baptism of the Holy Ghost. He says: "For by one Spirit are we all bap- tized into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free; and have been all made to drink into one Spirit." If we are in Christ, we have been put into Him by the baptism of the Holy Ghost; and if we have not been baptized with the Holy Ghost, we are not in Him, and have neither part nor lot with Him. These two baptisms are among the permanent and abiding principles of "the doctrine of Christ" — the bap- tism of the Holy Spirit, which purifies the heart and puts us into Christ, and the baptism of water, which is the sign of this inward purity ; it necessarily follows that where a saving efficacy or a putting into Christ is ascribed to baptism, it must be the baptism of the Holy Spirit, for it alone saves and puts into Christ. With these facts of the Holy Scriptures before us, we are prepared to examine Romans vi. 1-6 and Colos- sians ii. 11-12, and get a true and Scriptural interpreta- tion of them. Romans vi. 1-6 reads: ''What shall we say then? Shall we continue in sin, that grace may abound? God forbid. How shall we, that are dead to sin, live any longer therein? Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jesus Christ were baptized into His death? Therefore we are buried with Him by baptism into death : that like as Christ was raised up from the dead by the 1 88 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. glory of the Father, even so we also should walk in new- ness of life. For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of his resurrection: knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." We ask the reader to note particularly the language here used. Paul is talking about a death to sin, and the obligation of those who are dead to sin to lead a new life. In enforcing this great gospel truth, he says : ' ' Know ye not, that so many of us as were baptized into Jejsus Christ were baptized into His death?" The baptism of which He speaks was a baptism "into Jesus Christ," not a baptism into water. There is no water in this baptism at all. It is also a "baptism into His death." What baptism is it that puts us into Christ and into the benefits of His death? for that is what is meant by being "baptized into His death." Paul answers this question — the same Paul who wrote Romans vi. 3 : " For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body" — the one BODY OF Christ. This settles the question as to the baptism here spoken of. It is the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and not the baptism of water. The next verse affirms that the baptism and the burial are not the same, but that the baptism is the agent by or through which the burial is effected: "Therefore we are buried with Him [did\ through baptism into death." The burial is into death, not into water. Here the supposed al- lusion to a burial in immersion breaks down altogether. In this burial there is no resurrection out of that into which these Roman Christians had been buried — they were still buried at the time this epistle was written, and a resurrection out of that into which they had been buried would have been an apostacy from Christ. Here The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 189 the supposed allusion to baptism by immersion fails again, for in immersion there must be a resurrection out of THAT INTO WHICH the person had been buried. These Roman Christians were walking in newness of life while buried into the death of Christ by or through baptism, so that the burial and the resurrection to the new life existed at the same time. Next we have the figure of planting, or grafting, to represent our death to sin and newness of Hfe. Verse 5 : "For if we have been planted [or grafted] together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection." What, we ask, was the likeness of Christ's death to our being "planted" or grafted into Him in a spiritual sense? There can be no physical likeness to immersion alluded to here, yet all this is accompHshed by or through baptism. In the next verse he says: "Knowing this, that our old man is crucified with Him, that the body of sin might be destroyed, that henceforth we should not serve sin." We ask again, Could there be any physical likeness between Christ's crucifixion on the cross and our spiritual crucifixion with Him, and im- mersion in water? Yet all these things were accom- pUshed by the baptism here spoken of. The whole idea of an allusion to the mode of physical baptism here drops out, and the effects of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, by which all these results are accompHshed, becomes ap- parent, and proves that the mode of baptism by immersion was not alluded to in this passage, nor was it in the mind of the apostle when he wrote it ; but that he was speaking of the baptism of the Holy Spirit by which all these results are accomplished. Turn now to the parallel passage, Colossians ii. 11-12 : 'In whom also ye are circumcised with the circumcision made without hands, in putting off the body of the sins 190 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. of the flesh by the circumcision of Christ: buried with Him in baptism, wherein also ye are risen with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who hath raised Him from the dead." Here it is plain that the circumcision of verse 11 and the baptism of verse 12 are one and the same. The passage clearly shows this. The circumcision, all admit, was a spiritual, and not a physical one. It was "the circumcision of Christ, made without hands,'' and was the putting off the body of the sins of the flesh. The baptism of verse 12 then must be the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and not of water, and consequently can have no reference to the mode of physical baptism by immersion. The iv TO) (SaTrTLa-fxaTL (en to haptismati) must mean the same as Sta TO) /SaTTTLcrfiaTo^ (dia to haptismatos) in Romans vi. 4. That is, ev {en) is dative of instrument, and should be translated "by," as it is once in verse 11, and "with" once. The burial is the same in both passages, for the same man is writing about the same thing. * ' Buried by baptism" must be the proper rendering of this passage. The authorized version makes Paul contradict himself. The burial in Romans vi. 4 is not the baptism, nor is it "in baptism," but "through baptism." In Colossians ii. 12, in the commonly received version, the burial is "in baptism." But that the burial in Colossians is a spiritual one, like the burial in Romans, "into the benefits of Christ's death," is demonstrated by the antithesis — the resurrection. "Buried with Him by baptism, wherein ye are also risen with Him through the faith of the OPERATION OF God." The resurrection is unquestionably a spiritual one, and it follows that the burial must also be a spiritual one, and the baptism which accomplished both must be a spiritual baptism — the baptism of the Holy Spirit, and not the baptism of water. The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, 191 While this, I admit, is not the usual interpretation of these passages, I do not stand alone. Prof. MosKS Stuart takes the same view of these passages. I quote from Dr. J. R. Graves' edition. He says : "Most commentators have maintained that (rwera- r]fiev [sunetaphemen] is to be interpreted in a physical way — i. e., as meaning baptism in a physical sense, where is the corresponding physical idea in the opposite part of the antithesis or comparison? Plainly there is no such physical idea or reference in the other part of the antithesis. The resurrection there spoken of is entirely a moral, spiritual one; for it is one which Christians have already experienced during the present life, as maybe fully seen by comparing vs. 5, 11, below. I take it for granted that after tJ/^cZ? [emeis] in v. 4, iyep6evT€^ [egerthentes] is implied; since the nature of the comparison, the preceding d)s rjyepOrj Xpto-ros [hoos egerthe Christos] and v. 5, make this entirely plain. "If we turn now to the passage in Colossians 2: 12 (which is altogether parallel with the verse under exam- ination, and which has very often been agitated by 192 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, polemic writers on the subject of baptism) , we shall there find more conclusive reason still to argue as above re- specting the nature of the antithesis presented. *We have been buried with [Christ] by baptism.' What now is the opposite of this? What is the kind of resurrection from this grave in which Christians have been buried? The apostle tells us: 'We have risen with Him [Christ] by faith wrought by the power of God' [rrj^ cvepyetas tov ©eov {tes energeias ton Theou)], who raised Him [Christ] from the dead.' Here there is a resurrection by faith; i. e., a spiritual, moral one. Why, then, should we look for a physical meaning in the antithesis? If one part of the antithesis is to be construed in a manner entirely moral or spiritual, why should we not construe the other in like manner? To understand (TvvTdr]fji€v [suntaphemen] then, of a literal burial under water, is to understand it in a manner which the laws of interpretation appear to forbid. • • • • ' ' For these reasons I feel inclined to doubt the usual exegeses of the passage before us, and to believe that the apostle had in view only a burying which is moral and spiritual, for the same reasons that he had a moral and spiritual (not a physical) resurrection in view, in the corresponding part of the antithesis. "Indeed, what else but a moral burying can be meant when the apostle goes on to say, 'We are buried with Him [not by baptism only, but] by baptism into His DEATH ' ? Of course it will not be contended that a literal physical burying is here meant, but only a moral one. And although the words into His death are not inserted in Colossians 2:12, yet as the following verse there shows, they are plainly implied "When the apostle says, then, in Colossians 2: 12, * a-vvTdaTt* ['en pneumati] simply — e, g., Matthew 3: 11; Mark 1:8; Luke 3:16; John 1:33; Acts II : 16, or when it is said, We have all been baptized into one body, by one Spirit, 'h ivl irvcv/xart' ['en eni pneumati'] the meaning cannot be that we have been plunged or immersed into one Spirit, or into one fire, but that by means of these we have been spiritually baptized, or that the Spirit has been copiously poured out upon Christians." (Stuart on "Baptism," pp. 97, 98, 100, loi, 102, 103, 104, 106.) But when we come to examine the case fairly, what resemblance can we see between the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ and the immersion of a human body under water? Plainly there can be no physical likeness between His death on the cross and immersion in water. Paul says (Romans vi. 5) : "For if we have been planted together in the likeness of His death, we shall be also in the likeness of His resurrection." "Planted together"— with Him. What physical likeness is there between the death of Christ on the cross and immersion? Physical likeness is here utterly out of the question, and will not be contended for, for a moment. And yet this planting to- gether in the likeness of His death is ascribed to being "buried with Him by baptism into death." (Verse 4.) But we ask again. What physical likeness is there between the burial of Christ in Joseph's new tomb, hewn out of a rock, with niches cut on the sides to lay the bodies in (Matthew xxvii. 60), and the immersion of a human body under water? Remember the body of Christ was not cov- 194 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. ered up, but laid in the tomb, probably in one of the places cut in the sides of it, as receptacles for the bodies of the dead. The tomb was closed by a large stone cut to fit the door as a shutter. What physical likeness is there between such a burial and an immersion under water? It takes a tremendous amount of ingenuity and a great stretch of imagination to see any likeness what- ever between the two ! Again, we ask, What physical likeness is there be- tween the resurrection of Christ getting up and walking out of the tomb and a human body being raised up out of the water by a human administrator? Plainly there is no physical likeness between the burial and resurrection of Christ and the burial and resurrection of a human body by immersion in water. This is a letter addressed to the Romans. What likeness was there betw^een the burial of the Romans and immersion in water? The Romans usually burned the bodies of their dead, and gathered up their ashes and put them in an urn, and placed the urn in a tomb or a room prepared for that purpose. Could they have understood that there was any physical likeness between their mode of burial and immersion in water? Can any likeness be seen between our mode of burial and immersion? If there is any likeness at all between baptism and such a mode of burial, it would be to baptism by pouring, for the earth is poured upon the body, and not the body plunged into the earth. Plainly there can be no physical likeness be- tween any of these modes of burial and iynmersion in water. The likeness is wholly imaginary — an after-thought, to find some sort of justification for immersion in the Word of God. Baptism nowhere represents death, but life — not the corruption of the grave, but the purification of the heart The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 195 by the Holy Spirit. The idea that baptism was designed to represent the deaths burial, and resurrection of Christ was unknown in the primitive Church, and was not thought of until it was brought forward to find some sort of support for the practice of immersion for baptism; and as the first immersion practiced was trine immersion, the three dips were supposed to represent the three days that Jesus lay in the tomb ! But what did the three resurrec- tions represent? Christ arose but once; but in trine im- mersion there were three resurrections. We ask, What did they represent? Christ was buried but once; but in trine immersion there were three burials. What did these burials represent? The ingenuity of these ancient im- mersionists could invent a theory to justify their three dips to represent the three days in which the body of Jesus lay in the tomb, but it was unable to invent any theory or explanation of three resurrections of their baptism ! These old immersionists baptized their candidates naked ; they reasoned thus : ' ' Baptism is a washing, and it ought to be a washing of the body, and not of the clothes"; and hence they stripped their candidates as naked as they were born to baptize them. Let no man say this is a slander on these old primitive immersionists, for Dr. Richard Robinson, the great Baptist historian, in his "History of Baptism," says: '%et it be observed that these primitive Christians baptized naked. Nothing is easier than to give proof of this by quotations from the authentic writings of the men who l dministered baptism, and who certainly knew in what way they themselves performed it. ThkrE is no ancient historicaIv fact BETTER AUTHENTICATED THAN THIS." (Robiusou's "His- tory of Baptism," p. 113.) 196 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. No sensible man can for a moment belive that any such indecent and immoral practice as this prevailed in the apostolic Church ; and as we find it always connected with immersion, it is strong presumptive proof that im- mersion itself originated in the same superstition that did these accompaniments, all of which sought to make the simple rite of baptism more impressive. CHAPTER XIII. Baptism a Washing. But ThK question is asked: "Is not baptism a washing, and does not that necessarily imply an immer- sion? for how can there be a washing without an immer- sion? A few drops of water sprinkled upon the head is not a washing." We answer: Neither is an immersion a washing, if you take washing in a literal sense. If the washing of baptism must be taken in a literal sense, then much more is necessary than a simple dip in the water. But if the washing of baptism is understood as a religious washing, which it is, and must be so understood, then it may be a sprinkling; for nearly all the religious washings or baptisms of the Jews were simple sprinklings, and not one personal immersion was among them. We have seen that Paul, in Hebrews ix. lo, declares the law was made up principally of "divers baptisms"; and in the same connection he speaks of these baptisms as sprink- lings. It is only when we connect the idea of a literal physical washing of the dirt from the body, or washing clothes, that we get the idea of immersion connected with the washing of baptism. The recklessness of some of the over-zealous advo- cates of immersion may be seen in a statement made by Mr. Braden in his debate with me, page 45, where he says: "The only way water was ever applied in the law for cleansing was by a bathing in water, or immersion. The water of separation or purification was not the element water alone, God never commanded the element water 197 198 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. alone to be sprinkled on any person for any purpose, ceremonial or religious. The washing spoken of in all these cases — washing as haptidzo is rendered in our ver- sion — is immersion. They were immersions, and hap- tidzo is used because it means immerse, and it ought to be translated 'immerse' in all these cases." There are three things in this quotation to which we wish to call attention : I. Mr. Braden's statement, "The only way water was ever applied in the law for cleansing was by a bath- ing or immersion." This is utterly untrue. Aaron and his sons were cleansed or purified by simple water, by being washed at the door of the Tabernacle, "in the presence of all the congregation." (Leviticus viii. 3-6.) Here was simple unmixed water, and the washing could not have been done "by a bathing of the whole body or immersion." In Exodus xxx. 17-21 God made a per- petual statute, that the priests should always cleanse themselves by washing their hands and feet out of the little laver, or, as Josephus (who was himself a priest) says, "wash their hands, and sprinkle their feet," before entering into the Tabernacle, "lest they die." The word here translated "wash" in the Septuagint is nipsoontai. In Leviticus xv. 11 we read: "And whosoever he toucheth that hath the issue, and hath not rinsed his hands in water, he shall wash his clothes, and bathe him- self in water, and be unclean until even." Here a man is cleansed by "rinsing his hands in water." The word translated "rinsed" is neniptai; in the Septuagint it is vevLTTTaL v8aTL (neniptai hudati), "rinsed with water." The water was poured upon the hands, and not the hands dipped in the water. Here is a cleansing of the person by pouring simple water on the hands. What becomes of Mr. Braden's statement in the face of these precepts TJie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 199 of the law in regard to cleansing by pouring or sprinkling simple water on the unclean person? In Leviticus xv. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 16, 17, 18, 21, 23, and 27 we have various cleansings described, all of them with pure, simple water. While in our version these ex- amples read, ' 'and shall bathe himself in water," in the Septuagint in every case it is koI XovVerat vSari (kai lousetai hudatt), the simple dative, and can only be trans- lated properly, "and shall wash with water." Some- times our translators render it, "wash in water," and sometimes, "bathe in water"; but the preposition is never used; it is simple dative: lousetai hudati, " shall wash with water." The truth is, not one of these wash- ings or purifications was performed by "bathing in water." Our translators had no authority, in either the Septuagint or the Hebrew, or the customs of the Jews, to translate any of these cases, "shall bathe in water." In verse 16 they translate ''kai lousetai hudati pan to soma,'' "then he shall wash all his flesh in water." And in verse 11 they translate "kai lousetai to soma hudati," "and bathe himself in water." Why translate lousetai "wash" in one verse and "baThE" in the other? In fact, in all the other cases in this chapter where it is, in our version, "bathe himself in water," himself is in ital- ics, showing that it is always supplied, and not in the original. It is also not in the Greek. Kai lousetai hudati is simply, "and shall wash with water." 2. It must not be forgotten that the Jews never "bathed in water," unless in the sea or a running stream. They never bathed in a bath-tub as we do. If a bath- tub or any other vessel was used, it was used simply as a receptacle to catch the water that was poured over the body while standing or sitting in it. Living (that is, running) water was not to be had in Palestine in a large 200 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, part of the country and for a large portion of the year. Their water supply was mainly obtained from wells and cisterns and artificial pools. They could not and would not immerse themselves in their wells, cisterns, and pools, which held the water for drinking and cooking purposes, for this would have made it ceremonially and literally un- clean and unfit for the ordinary purposes of life. The following quotation from Rev. E. B. Fairfield, D.D., will throw much light on this subject: "The word [louo] often and more strictly means a bath? And this suggests the very interesting and per- tinent 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. . . . 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 run- ning water, as seen from the quotation above. (Numbers 19: 17.) In the Hebrew it is literally 'living water.' (See marginal reading in Numbers 19: 17; Leviticus 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,' as he says, 'from the description of the bath administered to Ulysseus 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. The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 201 was taken out in other vessels, and poured over the head and shoulders of the person who sat in the bath-tub.' "Dr. Smith further says: 'On ancient vases, on which persons are represented bathing, we never find anything corresponding to a modern bath in which per- sons can stand or sit ; but there is always 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.* "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.' "Wilkinson, in 'The Manners of the Ancient Egyp- tians,' 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. "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 motion seems everywhere to be sought for." (Fairfield's "Let- ters on Baptism," pp. 92, 93, 94, 95.) What becomes of Mr. Braden's statement in the face of these facts? Every one of these purifications was done WITH water — not one single immersion among them — not a single personal immersion required or enjoined by the law of Moses. We want to call attention to another fact in the time of our Lord. In John ii. 6 we read: "And there were set there six water-pots of stone, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, containing two or three firkins apiece." It is apparent from this, that the master of a feast among the Jews made provision for the guests to —14— 202 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. have ample means for purifying themselves, not only for washing their hands before eating, but also during and after their meals, and for those who came from the markets, or from a crowd, when it was necessary that they should purify or baptize themselves, not only by washing their hands, but by sprinkling their clothes. There was ample provision for the baptism or purifica- tion of all the guests, but there was no provision for their immersion. We know that they washed their hands not by dip- ping THEM. A clean person dipped the water from the water-pots with a small vessel, and poured it upon the hands or sprinkled it upon the clothes of the person. If defiled hands had been dipped into the water-pots, both the water and the pots would have been defiled, and the water would have been thrown out and the pots would have been broken. (Numbers xix. 22 ; Leviticus xv. 12.) In Second Kings iii. 11 we read: "Here is Blisha the son of Shafat, who poured water on the hands of Elijah." Elisha was the servant or minister of Elijah, and when Elijah washed his hands, EHsha poured the water on them. This shows the custom in washing the hands among the Jews. We have seen the same custom referred to by Sozomen, when speaking of the acts of the Empress Helena, who, he says, "assembled the sacred virgins at a feast, ministered to them at supper, pre- sented them with food, poured water on their hands, and performed other similar services customary on such occasions." This shows the custom of pouring water on the hands in purifications at feasts. The same custom prevails to-day in Bible lands. Dr. Fairfield says : "The method of washing 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 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 203 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 into a place con- venient 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 possible means of doing otherwise. The water poured from the pitcher becomes running water, and your hands are cleansed in that way." ("Letters on Baptism," p. 107.) Dr. Fairfield gives us a quotation from Mr. M. C. Hazard, of a conversation between him and a Jewish rabbi concerning Mark vii. 3, reported in The Congrega- tionalist. Mr. Hazard says: "It was a feeUng 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 con- temptuously said: 'It is evident that Mark did not know what he was talking about.' Catching my breath at such an easy disposition 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 was 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 run- ning water, either in a natural stream or in water flowing from a hydrant, or in water poured from some vessel by main strength from one hand upon the other.' The ex- pression 'by main strength' immediately caught my atten- 204 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. tion, 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? Ordinarily it would have been im- possible in Mark's day for anyone 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, a d, with a candor which much commended this modern Pharisee, said: *I was wrong; that is what Mark did mean.' " Mr. Hazard then goes on to say: "The rabbi had awakened my curiosity in saying that the Jews never baptized 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 any of the Jews lay any emphasis upon the amount in which they baptize ? ' * None ; the tiniest stream of water would suffice for the most complete ceremonial lavation.' " {Ibid., pp. io8, 109, no. III.) Two things we want to call particular attention to in the testimony of this eminent Jewish rabbi : (i) For all their ceremonial purifications, the Jews must have running water. If they have no natural stream or hydrant, they make it run by pouring it from a pitcher or some other vessel. (2) The AMOUNT of water for their baptisms cuts no figure. The tiniest stream flowing from a hydrant, or poured from a pitcher or other vessel, is sufficient for the most complete baptism of the person. What becomes of the idea of immersion in the Jewish baptisms in the light of the testimony of this eminent rabbi? The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 205 The real washing from sin is in or by "the blood of the Lamb " ; and that washing is always done by "sprink- WNG," never by plunging or imme^rsion. We have much of plunging in ''the fountain of blood'' and in "the cleansing stream" in our hymns, but not a word of it in the Word of God! All such expressions ought to be taken out of our hymns, for they are false and misleading, and teach our young people a false theology in regard to the method of purification from sin, and suggest the idea of plunging or immersion as the proper mode of baptism, as the emblem of the purifying of the soul from sin by plunging in the fountain or stream of spiritual cleansing. In Revelation i. 5 we read: "Unto Him that loved us and washed us from our sins in His own blood." Here we have kva-avri (lusanti), from louo, to wash. In Reve- lation vii. 13-14 we read: "And one of the elders an- swered, saying unto me, What are these which are arrayed in white robes? and whence came they? And I said unto him. Sir, thou knowest. And he said to me. These are they which came out of great tribulation, and have washed their robes, and made them white in the blood of the Lamb." Here we have Kat e-n-Xwav (eplunan), from ttXvvo (pluno), to wash. In First Corinthians vi. 11 we read: "And such were some of you; but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, -and by the Spirit of our God." Here we have aTreXova-ecr&e (apelousesthe) , from louo, to wash. Here we have both louo, to wash in a general sense, and pluno, to wash clothes, used to express the "washing away of sins." The question, then, is: How is this washing of the soul from sin, and this washing of the robes of the saints, which is the same thing, accomplished? What is the mode of this washing? 2o6 TJie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. In Hebrews x. 22 we read : "Let us draw near with a true heart in full assurance of faith, having our hearts SPRINKLED from an evil conscience and our bodies washed with pure water." Here the washing of the heart "from an evil conscience" is declared to be done by sprinkling. That is the mode of this washing. In First Peter i. 2 we read: "Elect according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through sanctification of the Spirit, unto obedience and sprinkling of the BLOOD OF JESUS Christ." Here, again, the washing from sin ' 'in the blood of the Lamb" is done by sprinkling. In Hebrews xii. 24 we read: "And to Jesus the mediator of the new covenant, and to the blood of sprink- ling, that speaketh better things than the blood of Abel." Here the blood of the Lamb, that washes away sins, is called "the blood of sprinkling." And it is never applied by any other mode but sprinkling. Let not immersionists say any more, that a religious washing must necessarily imply an immersion, for here the most important religious washing in the universe, the washing of the soul from sin, is uniformly done by sprink- ling ! Don't forget that both louo and pluno are used to express this washing, which is always done by sprink- ling ! We need hardly to call the attention of the reader to the fact that the preposition iv (en) in both the pas- sages from Revelation is used in the instrumental sense, and should have been translated "with." That would have accorded with the fact, as well as with the proper rule of language ; for the heart is sprinkled with the blood , and not sprinkled in it. In the cleansing of the soul from sin, both parts of. the purification are done by affusion. The washing away of sin by the blood of the Lamb is done by sprinkling. The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 207 The renewing of the heart by the Holy Ghost is done by POURING. (Titus iii. 5-6.) Now we ask: If the real washing, the washing away of sin from the soul, is done by sprinkling, and the re- newing or regeneration of the heart is done by pouring, by what rule of analogy, logic, fitness of things, or common sense would you have the emblem of this cleansing and purification done by immersion? Ought there not to be agreement between the thing done within and that which is the outward emblem of it in mode? If the inward, spiritual washing can be and is done by sprinkling or affusion, cannot and ought not the outward washing which represents it be done by affusion? Would not this be the appropriate way to represent it? It seems to me that no argument could be made clearer to prove any- thing than the argument here is to prove that the religious washing of baptism is Scripturally performed by affu- sion. But someone may say: "You have two modes of baptism— sprinkling and pouring, and to be Script- ural you must baptize every candidate by both modes.'' To this we reply : There is no difference as to mode. As we have shown in another place, the mode is the same. There is only difference in degree. Of a light shower we say, ''It sprinkles"; of a heavy shower we say, ''It pours." But the mode is the same. So this objection is groundless. I want to call attention again, in this connection, to the fact that the Jewish baptisms, washings, or purifica- tions were nearly all simple; sprinklings. Take the case of purifying from a dead body, in The Wisdom of Syriac, xxxiv. 30: "He that is baptized from a dead body, and touches it again, what is he profited by his washing?" Here the baptism from a dead body is called "a washing," and yet that baptism or washing was a simple sprinkling 2o8 Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. of the water of separation on him, on the "third day and on the seventh day," and he was clean. (Numbers ix. 12-13.) Here a ritual washing was done by sprinkling. Baptizomenos and loutro are both used to express an act of SPRINKLING. Baptism as a washing is thus proven to be an act of sprinkling. CHAPTER XIV. Onk Lord, On^ Faith, One Baptism. There is one more passage in the New Testament that is looked upon by immersionists as decisive in regard to their mode of baptism. It is Ephesians iv. 5. We will quote the connection from verses 3-6 : ' ' Endeavoring to keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace. There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through all, and in you all." What connection this passage can have with the mode of baptism I am utterly unable to see. Neither water baptism nor its mode is the subject under consider- ation by the apostle, but the spiritual unity of the Church, as anyone can see by an examination of the passage. There is just as little ground to bring forward this passage as a proof text in favor of immersion as Mr. Campbell had to bring it forward as a proof text in favor of bap- tism "for the remission of sins" ; and yet he did it. It is the sixth and last passage that he adduces to prove that baptism "is for the remission of sins." His argument is: "Now, if there be but one baptism — and it appears that both the New Testament dispensations of baptism, by John and by the apostles, clearly affirm a connection between baptism and remission of sins — must it not follow that the only divinely instituted baptism is for the remission of sins?" This argument is founded upon an "if," and an "if," and is worth just as much as the 209 2IO The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. "ifs" upon which it is founded. There is no more con- nection between this passage and the remission of sins than there is between it and an ecHpse of the moon. Nor is there any more relation between it and immersion than there is between it and the remission of sins. Yet Mr. Campbell could see remission of sins wherever he could see the word "baptism," and our immersionist friends can" see immersion wherever they can see the word ''baptism," notwithstanding we have given ex- ample after example in the Scriptures where it means to SPRINKLE or to POUR, and not a single case can they give where it necessarily means to immerse in all the Bible. But the strong point they make with their ignorant fol- lowers on this passage is, they tell them that we have three baptisms, sprinkling, pouring, and immersion, and the Bible says there is "on^ baptism," and that is im- mersion, and they have it. With them baptism is mode or action, and nothing else. With us it is a purification, and mode has nothing to do with its essence. But this passage does not say that there is "but ON^ baptism" in the Church of God. Read the passage care- fully, and you will see that this is a forced construction of the passage. Remember that in a former chapter I proved by the Word of God that there are Two baptisms among "the principles of the doctrine of Christ" that abide permanently in the Church: the baptism of the Holy Ghost, by which we are "baptized into Jesus Christ, into His one) body" (First Corinthians xii. 13); and the baptism of water, in token that we have received that baptism that has purified us and put us into Christ. So this interpretation must fail. Now, if our immersionist friends contend that this passage teaches that there is "but one baptism" in the Church of Christ, then I must insist that this one baptism The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 211 is the baptism of the Holy Ghost, and not the baptism of water, and the passage will bear me out in my contention, for it is the spiritual unity of the Church that is here being illustrated by the apostle. "Endeavoring to keep the UNITY OF THE SPIRIT." Here there can be no ques- tion of the nature of the "unity" Paul is speaking of. It is not an organic unity of the body of Christ, but it is a spiritual unity. How is this spiritual unity accom- plished? Paul answers himself : "For by one Spirit are we all baptized into one body." It is plain that Paul is here speaking of that "onK baptism" that makes us "one body," and that is the rkal baptism — the .baptism of the Holy Spirit, of which water baptism is the symbol. So this passage has no reference to the mode of baptism by immersion or by any other mode. But the charge that we practice three baptisms, while Paul says "onB baptism," has great weight with ignorant minds, and we are partly to blame for it, in ad- mitting that immersion, sprinkling, and pouring were all practiced by the apostles, and in that sense are Scriptural modes of baptism. With immersionists, I believe and am sure that there was but "one" mode of baptism practiced by the apostles, and that mode was affusion, and not IMMERSION. After the most painstaking and careful investigation for more than a half -century, I have been unable to find a single particle of evidence that immersion was ever practiced in the whole history of Bible baptisms, from Moses to the end of the apostolic age, but all to the con - trary. "Well," says one, "why do you practice immer- sion at all then?" I frankly confess that it is an incon- sistency that may be defended only on the ground that the mode is not essential to the ordinance. In my opening 212 Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. speech in my debate with Mr. Braden, in Vienna, 111., in August, 1868, I said: "It is well known that we hold that no specific mode is essential to the Christian ordinance. Baptism, we con- tend, may be performed properly and Scripturally by a diversity of modes: by pouring, sprinkling, or by immer- sion, once, twice, or thrice. The mode we consider not es- sential to the thing. Baptism is one thing, while its mode of administration is quite another thing. But while I admit that immersion may be Scriptural baptism, I do not admit that it is Scriptural in the sense of it being an apostolic institution. I do not admit that John the Baptist ever immersed anybody; I do not admit that it was ever prac- ticed in apostolic times; and the only ground upon which I can admit it to he Scriptural is that the Scriptures leave the mode undetermined.'' ("Braden and Hughey Debate," pp. 8-9.) That was thirty-eight years ago. I wish to modify the last clause of the last sentence. After thirty-eight years of further study, / cannot admit that the Scriptures leave the mode undetermined. I think they determine the question of the mode of baptism as fully as anything can be determined by evidence, and hence I wish to modify that statement. If this passage refers to mode when it says "one bap- tism," then it means the "one" mode by which God always administered it, whether by water, as in the case of the Israelites (First Corinthians x. 2), or by the Holy Spirit (Acts ii. 17-33, x. 44, and xi. 15-16). Whatever view we may take of this passage, it utterly fails to sus- tain the claims of immersionists. We have gone through the entire New Testament, and have failed to find a single authority for the claims of immersionists. Im- mersion has no foundation in the Word of God. CHAPTER XV. History of thk Mode of Baptism. It is claimed by the advocates of immersion that Christian baptism was originally performed by immersion, and many Pedo-Baptist writers have, without any his- torical warrant, admitted this claim. Dr. MoshKim, in his "Ecclesiastical History," written about the middle of the eighteenth century, on page 28, speaking of the first century, says: "The sacrament of baptism was administered in this century, without the public assemblies, in places ap- pointed and prepared for that purpose, and was per- formed by an immersion of the whole body in the bap- tismal font." This passage from Dr. Mosheim's "Ecclesiastical History" has given great comfort to our immersionist friends, and they quote it with all the assurance of an historical fact. On this statement of Dr. Mosheim we remark : 1. There has not come down to us from the first century a single line or word on the mode of baptism, outside of the New Testament, and there is not the shadow of a warrant for it in the New Testament. 2. The baptisms of the New Testament, as we have seen, all took place on the spot where the conversions took place, and there is never a hint that they went in search of a place where there were the facilities for immersion to baptize their converts, 213 214 Th^ Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 3. The use of baptismal fonts was unknown in the first century. They were an institution of later date. 4. Dr. Mosheim seems to take for granted, without any authority, that the practice of the third and fourth centuries was the practice of the first century also. But we know now it was quite different in many respects. 5. Many discoveries have been made touching this question, by Christian archaeologists, since Dr. Mosheim wrote his famous "Church History," and much light has been thrown upon this question that he did not have. This is the only apology I can find for this wholly un- justifiable statement. 6. Over against this statement of Dr. Mosheim, made in the middle of the eighteenth century, we place the statement of Prof. William G. Williams, D.D., pro- fessor of the Greek language and literature in the Ohio Wesleyan University for fifty years, one of the finest Greek scholars this country has ever produced, made in his book on "Baptism," written in 1901. On page 25 he says : "The Church began with sprinkling, and then lapsed for a time into the gross ritualism of immersion ; but now has come back to the ancient and simple form in which the apostles baptized their converts." Dr. Williams' statement must have great weight with thinking minds, when we take into consideration his great scholarship and extensive research on the subject. My first historical argument to prove that the an- cient or primitive mode of baptism was by affusion is drawn from the imperishable monuments of early Chris- tian antiquity. There are two parts or branches of the argument : I. The ancient pictures of baptism, from the second to the tenth century, every one of which that has yet been The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 215 found represents the baptism of Christ by John and other baptisms as performed by affusion; not one represents any one as being baptized by immersion until the ninth or tenth century, and that is found in Russia, and it is doubtful if it is a representation of immersion, as the ad- ministrator is not in the water, but standing on the bank, reaching out his hand and touching the head of the man in the water. This agrees with all the other pictures of baptism, which always represent the administrator as standing on the bank and pouring the water on the head of the person baptized, when he is standing or kneeling in the water; but in some of these pictures both the person baptized and the administrator are standing on the land and no water is in sight, except what is in a vase or bowl or font sitting by, or in the pitcher or vase from which the administrator pours the water on the head of the person baptized. 2. The most ancient baptismal fonts which have been found in the ruins of the most ancient churches are just such fonts as are to-day found in Presbyterian and Methodist churches, not large enough to immerse even a baby in, much less an adult. This argument, when clearly presented, is conclusive and unanswerable. Here there can be no controversy over the meaning of verbs, nouns, or prepositions. The object lesson is presented to the eye, and through the eye to the understanding. Dr. Richard Robinson, of Cambridge, England, in his "History of Baptism," about A. D. 1780, was the first, I believe, who introduced this branch of evidence into this controversy, and he was an ardent immersionist. On pages 141 -2 he says: "The illustrious antiquary. Bishop Andrew ab Aqui- no, observed some singular representations of baptism on a tomb at Chiaia, a villa near Naples, belonging to 2i6 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. his relative, Prince Caramanoi. He ordered drafts to be taken of two, and sent them to Rome to the celebrated Ciampini, who showed them to Fabretti and Mabillon. The three connoisseurs supposed them to be representa- tions of baptism by immersion and superfusion, or pouring water all over, administered by a layman. In one there are eleven human figures; some appear to be intended for Romans, because they are clean-shaven — others Greeks or Lombards, because they have long beards. In the middle stands a large labrum, and in it a prince and princess are kneeling, both naked, except the coronets on their heads. The water is supposed to rise above their waists, while a Roman in a lay habit is standing and pouring water plentifully out of a pitcher upon the head of the prince, who lifts up his hands as if in prayer, and who by his beard should be either a Greek or a Lombard. In the other there is the same number of persons. A laver of another form stands by. Four are kneeling on the ground, three clothed, and praying, the fourth naked, except a loose covering round the middle; one pouring the water on the head of the naked person out of a pitcher, and the rest waiting with habits to put upon the naked newly baptized when the ceremony is over. Father Mabillon observes that these resemble that of the baptism of Romanus by St. Lawrence at Rome, and that they are intended either to exhibit a Greek baptism, where, besides the trine immersion, superfusion was practiced,[or a bap- tism where the laver was too small, and where the body was immersed in the laver, and the head was immersed by superfusion. . . . Everything had a beginning, and there must have been a first artist who introduced em- blems of baptism. He thought, no doubt, he should give a just notion of immersion (for he could mean no other, as no other was in practice) by placing the lower part of a The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 217 person in water, either in a river or a bath, and by show- ing another person pouring water over the upper part out of the water ; for what could he mean, except that to be baptized was to wet all over, to cover the whole man with water?" On this remarkable quotation from Dr. Robinson we wish to remark: 1. It takes a most brilliant and thoroughly im- mersed imagination to see an emblem of immersion in these plain and simple pictures of baptism by pouring. 2. Dr. Robinson remarks of the artist whom he thought first began making representations of baptism: "He thought, no doubt, that he should give a just notion of immersion (for he could mean no other, as no other WAS in practice)." This is the coolest and most com- plete begging of the question I have ever met with. The question in debate is. What was the ancient mode of bap- tism? was it immersion, or was it affusion? Dr. Rob- inson coolly assumes that it was immersion, and that there was no other practice in the ancient Church, and therefore the artist who drew these pictures of baptism by pouring thought, no doubt, that he was giving a JUST NOTION OF IMMERSION ! This is the rarest specimen in the art of controversy I have ever met with in all my experience. But it is at par with a large per cent of this same author's arguments. A cause must be hard pressed when its leading advocates resort to such methods of [de- fense. Yet Dr. J. R. Graves republished this book, and sent it out as a standard history of baptism ! 3. His remark about the man pouring water plenti- fully out of a pitcher on the head of the prince, "so that the upper part of the body was immersed or thoroughly wet by superfusion," existed only in his mind. In many of these pictures of baptism (as in this case) the pitcher —15— 2i8 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, or other vessel used is not large enough to pour water over the upper part of the body, and in some only the hand is used, so this part of his argument is gone. His attempt to get the man kneeling on the ground and the other man pouring the water on his head immersed is unique and original. The vase or font that sits by on the ground is not large enough to immerse a babe in, much less the body of a man. Then the idea of immersing a man's body, and not his head, and afterwards immersing it by SUPER- FusiON, is certainly a new way of immersion, and one that would not be accepted by any immersionist Church of our times. To such ridiculous subterfuges are the ablest ad- vocates of immersion driven in their eagerness to uphold and defend their utterly indefensible position. 4. The person standing or kneeling in the water is no part of the baptism. That is the position the party assumes himself for baptism. The baptism is the act performed by the baptizer upon him, and that is always by affusion. 5. In all these baptisms the baptizer is never rep- resented as being in the water, whether the baptism is performed in a river, or in a baptistery, or in a private bathtub. This completely upsets the whole theory of immersion. 6. In some of these pictures, as we shall see, the baptized are not in the water at all, but on the land, with no water in sight, except that which was used in pouring upon the head of the baptized. This fact completely sets aside the idea of immersion. 7. Dr. Robinson tells us the Greeks practiced su- PERFusiON after trine immersion; pouring, then, was necessary to complete the baptism. What then becomes of the exclusive claims of immersion? The Scriptural Mode of Christian, Baptism. 219 Dr. Robinson remarks on page 144: "There are many representations of baptisms in old church windows, and all in favor of immersion." Yet he furnishes but two pictures of baptism, the one we have been discussing, and one the baptism of Christ on a baptistery in Venice, where Jesus is standing in the Jordan, and John standing on the bank touching the head of Jesus with his right hand. Surely this is not a representation of immersion. If Dr. Robinson could have found a picture of bap- tism in all the range of Christian antiquity that repre- sented both the baptizer and the baptized standing in the water, and the baptizer in the act of plunging the bap- tized under the water, would he not have produced \V The fact that he failed to produce one such picture proves clearly that he was unable to find such an one, and such an one has not been produced by immersionists. There is a work on "Baptism and Baptisteries," by WoLFRKD Nelson Cote, missionary in Rome, published by the Bible and Publication Society, 530 Arch Street, Philadelphia, and dedicated to the Southern Baptist Convention. It is without date, but was published about thirty-five or forty years ago. The frontispiece is the pict- ure of the baptism of Christ, found in the Chapel of the Baptistery in the Catacomb of St. Ponziano, Rome, which you will see a few pages further on. Jesus is represented as standing in the river Jordan ; John is standing on the bank, with his right hand on the head of Jesus, with a small object in his hand, probably a shell, from which he is pouring water on His head. He gives us two pictures which he claims represent baptism by immersion, one of which he says is "probably of the ninth century," and represents the baptism of a prince of Bulgaria or Bohemia. The baptism of the Bulgarian or Bohemian prince was evidently in a baptistery. The candidate is standing in 220 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. the water up to his waist, while the minister is standing by, and his right hand is touching the forehead of the candidate, and his left hand is extended in front of his shoulder. He is not in the attitude of immersing him, but of having dipped the water with his right hand and ^^^k^ J[ WW ^^ ^ ^^ A^r>^ J^ ^^ /[^^■^^ ^— *— » ~ 1 ^^ l^^^%^j^^ ir^siy ^S rZv/7^//A Wj ^ ^^ulsExi [ ^ fT V/a/ J ffl 4 1 '¥i -^-1 1 ^ J ^^31 ^ UJpL ri ^ mi.__ Fig. I . — Baptism of a Convkrt by Cyril, Missionary in Bulgaria. putting it upon the forehead of the candidate. The arms of the candidate are hanging down by his sides. If im- mersion had been represented, the minister's left hand would have been at the back of the candidate's head, and the candidate's arms would have been folded across his breast, and the minister's right hand would have clasped The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 221 the hands or arms of the candidate, as takes place in every case of immersion. But this is not the representation in this case. Everything in the position and attitude of both the candidate and the administrator indicates that the baptism was performed by affusion, and not by im- mersion. This case can furnish no support for the prac- tice of immersion. The other is a baptism according to the Russian rite, and is represented as being performed in a river or stream. The candidate is standing in the Fig. 2. — Ceremony of Baptism According to the Russian Rite. From a'Runic Manuscript op the 13TH OR 14TH Century. water up to his waist ; the minister is standing on the bank, his right hand reaching out and touching the forehead of the candidate, as if he had dipped up the water from the stream and put it on his head. His left hand is not visible, and his body is somewhat inclined forward, as he reaches his hand to the head of the candidate. This cannot be a representation of baptism by immersion; but, like all the others where the candidate is represented 222 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. as standing in the water and the administrator standing on the bank, it is a representation of baptism by affusion — the administrator dipping up the water with his right hand and putting it upon his head. No example of im- mersion has yet been found, and our immersionist friends have come down in their search to the fourteenth century. Figures i and 2 are the pictures that Mr. Cote claims rep- resent baptism by immersion. The reader will see that, like all the other pictures of baptism where the candidate is represented as standing in the water, the baptism is performed by pouring, and not by immersion. The first is the baptism of the Bulgarian or Bohemian prince, and Mr. Cote thinks it dates from the eighth or ninth century. The second is the baptism after the Russian rite. (See pages 220 and 221, ante,) We will now take up the ancient pictures of baptism that Mr. Charles Taylor gives us in his "Apostolic Baptism," and consider their weight. The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 223 I. JESUS Christ Baptized in the Jordan by John Baptist. "This picture is in the small chapel of the Catacomb of Pontiatius, called the 'Chapel of the Baptistery.' Be- neath the portraits is painted one of those crosses, or- namented with precious stones, called GemmatcE; to the arms of which are hung the symbolical characters of Christ, A and O.— Aringhi, Roma Sotterranea, Tome i. "The lamb is introduced in allusion to 'the Lamb of God'; and the single angel in this representation proves that it is a work of the most remote antiquity." (Taylor's ' ' Apostolic Baptism," facing p. 2 11 .) 224 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. The chapel is a small room hewn out of the tufa, a soft rock that may be cut with a knife, but which hardens on being brought into the air. The baptismal font is cut in the rock just beneath the picture, and in it the candi- date stood while the rite was being performed. Mr. WiTHROW gives us the dimensions of this baptismal font as it is to-day: "It is thirty-six inches long, thirty-two inches wide, and forty inches deep, but is seldom near full of water. It is obviously too small for immersion, and was evidently designed for administering the rite as shown in the fresco which accompanies it." (Withrow's "Catacombs of Rome," p. 537.) In the bottom of this font is a living [stream, usually only a few inches deep. While the candidate stood in the waters of the baptistery, the administrator poured water on his head, as illustrated by the fresco on the wall just above him, illustrating Christ's baptism in the Jordan by John pouring the water on His head out of a shell or some other small vessel, which he holds in his right hand. It will be noticed that in this picture, while Jesus is represented as standing in the water up to His waist and John as standing on the bank, the feet of John and the feet of Jesus are very nearly on a level. This shows that the artist represented the Savior thus in the water as a covering or shade for the nude body in the picture, and not to show that Jesus was actually in the water up to His waist. We know that Jesus was not baptized naked, and that He would not have gone into the water that deep with His clothes on, and if He had, John could not have reached Him to pour the water on His head, nor would John's feet have been so near par- allel with the feet of Jesus as they are usually repre- sented in these pictures. The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 225 Here is another picture of our Lord's baptism : II. Baptism of Christ in Jordan. "This representation is the center-piece of the dome of the Baptistery at Ravenna; which building was erected and decorated in 454." (Taylor's "Apostolic Baptism," p. 195.) Here our Lord is represented as standing in the water up to or near His waist, while John is standing on a pro- truding rock, pouring water on His head out of a shell; while the Holy Spirit descends like a dove, and the mythological figure, representing the river Jordan, sits on the water near by. 226 Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. Here is another picture of the baptism of our Lord : Plate III. "This is a representation in mosaic of the baptism of Christ in Jordan, preserved in the church in Cosmedin, at Ravenna, which was erected A. D. 401. "In the center is Christ our Saviour in the river Jordan. On a rock stands John the Baptist, in his left hand is a bent rod, and his right hand holds a patera, shell; from which he pours watkr on the head of the Redeemer; over whom descends the dove, the symbol of the Holy Ghost, with expanded wings, and emitting rays of glory and grace." (Taylor's "Apostolic Baptism," p. I97-) The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 227 Here is another picture of our Lord's baptism: IV. Jesus Baptized in the River Jordan. "This picture is copied from the door of the church at Beneventum, which was one of the first cities in [Italy where the gospel was introduced. It is rudely executed and extremely ancient." (Taylor's "Apostolic Baptism," p. I93-) We have given four pictures of our Lord's baptism from the second to the fifth century (and the number could be easily multiplied, but these are sufficient). In every one the baptism is performed by pouring, while Jesus is represented as standing in the water, and John is standing on the bank and pouring the water on His head, illustrating his language: "I indeed baptize you with water." 228 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. Here is another picture of baptism by pouring ; Pl,ATB V. "This subject is an ornament on the door of the great church at Pisa. From the shape of the characters, it must be of very ancient workmanship. The motto upon it is Baptizat. It was obviously made for some Christian estabUshment. According to the tradition cur- rent among the Pisans, it was brought from Jerusalem by the Crusaders, about the commencement of the twelfth century." (Taylor's "Apostolic Baptism," p. 189.) The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 229 The following is the picture of St. Lawrence baptizing Romanus. On this picture Mr. Taylor remarks as follows : VI. LaurKntius Baptizing Romanus. "This representation is in the Church of Lawrence extra Muros, at Rome. The jugs or vases are remarkable ; being the same as in other pictures of far remoter an- tiquity. The action of pouring is the same, and by an ecclesiastic. "In the other baptisms portrayed in Plates VII. and VIII., as they were performed in an inconvenient manner and place, it might be alleged, that the pecuHar vase was adopted because there was not a better vehicle at hand; but this objection does not apply to this case, because Lawrence, the martyr-preacher, is depicted as formally administering baptism in a regular baptistery by pouring!" (Taylor's "Apostolic Baptism," p. 207.) 230 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. Here is another picture of baptism on land with only a small vase or font containing the water, from which a pitcher has been filled, for the purpose of pouring the water on the head of the candidate, as seen in the picture. The vase or font, as can be seen, is entirely too small to immerse in, and could not have been designed for any such purpose. This is a case of baptism by simply pouring the water on the head, the candidate kneeUng on the ground. On this picture Mr. Taylor remarks as below the picture: Plate VII. "This depicts, i. The candidate kneeling down and praying near the bath of water; and a hand issues from a cloud above him, to denote the acquiescence of heaven in his petitions. 2. Baptism is administered by pouring WATER out of a vase on persons who are kneeling on the ground, and not immersed at all. Either, then, baptism was administered without immersion, by pouring only; or those persons had previously been immersed, and after- wards received baptism, as a distinct, subsequent, and separate act. Either of these facts, and one of them must be the truth, cuts up the Baptist system by the roots." (Taylor's "Apostolic Baptism," p. 203.) The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 231 Mr. Taylor claims that where the persons in these pictures are represented as standing or kneeling in the water, there is both immersion and pouring ; but that the pouring constitutes the baptism. But there is no im- mersion represented in any of these pictures. The standing or kneeling in the water is not an immersion, and is no part of the baptism. The baptism is always represented as done by pouring, whether the candidate is standing or kneeling in a river, or a family bath, or on the ground. VIII. Baptism Outsider of a Church. In the above picture there is no baptismal font or vase present, except the vase or pitcher from which the water is poured on the head of the boy. "The boy is unclothed, and the ordinance is admin- istered by pouring. This representation shows that the present Abyssinian mode of baptism anciently was extant among the Greeks, as well as among the Romans. This plate is at Rome, yet it was the work of Greek artists, in the ninth or tenth century." (Taylor's "Apostolic Bap- tism," p. 205.) 232 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. Here is the picture of the baptism of the great Con- stantine. (Taylor's "ApostoHc Baptism," p. 209.) He is represented as kneeUng in a family bath, and Eusebius, Bishop of Nicomedia, is pouring the water on his head. IX. Baptism ot the BmpEROR Constantine. The next picture is taken from Taylor's "Apostolic Baptism," p. loi, and is the picture Dr. Robinson gives on page 140 of his "History of Baptism," where he claims that the lower parts of the bodies of the baptized were im- mersed in the family bath "and their heads were im- mersed by suPKRFusiON," and where he saw in the picture what is not there: "water poured plentifully out of the pitcher, on the upper parts of their bodies, so that they were wKT ALL OVER. ' ' And in this way the artist ' ' thought, no doubt, that he should give a just notion of immersion (for he could mean no other, as no other was prac- The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, 233 Ticed) by placing the lower part of a person in water, either in a river or a bath, and by showing another person pouring water over the upper part out of the water; for what could he mean, except that to baptize was To WET ALiv OVER, to cover the whole man with water?" This is certainly the richest attempt to make a picture of bap- tism by POURING represent immersion in all controversial literature. It is a stretch of the imagination unparalleled. X. Baptism of a Heathen King and QuEEn. We wish to call the reader's attention to a few points in regard to these ancient pictures of baptism, especially the baptism of our Lord, found in ancient baptisteries, churches, tombs, etc.: I. According to our immersionist friends, every one of these ancient pictures of baptism by pouring was made by immersionists ; for they hold that immersion alone was taught and practiced in the ancient Church from —16— 234 T^^ Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. John the Baptist, or, rather, John the Baptizer (for this is his proper title, as the word Baptistes means "one who baptizes, a baptizer") for fifteen hundred years. 2. According to our immersionist friends, these were the strangest immersionists ever heard of. They were all immersed themselves, and believed that Jesus was immersed by John in the river Jordan, and that no other mode had ever been practiced; but, when they came to draw pictures of the baptism of our Lord, they invariably represented it as done by pouring, while Jesus stood in the water, and John stood on the bank, and with his right hand poured water on the head of our Lord from a shell ! 3. Would any immersionist now living picture the baptism of our Lord as these ancient immersionists did, according to our immersionist friends? 4. A man always pictures a thing as it exists in his mind. He transfers to the canvas his mental conception, and his picture gives us his idea of the thing. When these ancient Christian artists pictured our Lord as being baptized by pouring, they gave us their idea of how He was baptized. 5. Where did they get this idea? The idea was universal, so that there is not a picture of the baptism of Christ or the baptism of any other person represented by immersion in all Christian archaeology. Again we ask, Where did they get this idea of baptism by pouring as the universal practice of the first centuries of the Christian era? Can any man give us an answer to this question from the immersionists' standpoint? 6. It is inconceivable that these early Christians should have invariably pictured the baptism of our Lord and all other baptisms, the pictures of which have come down to us from the remotest Christian antiquity, in a The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 235 mode which was never practiced and which they had never seen or heard of. Yet this is the very thing that our immersionist friends ask us to beUeve did actually occur ! 7. These plain facts prove to us, beyond the possi- bility of a reasonable doubt or quibble, that baptism was practiced in the early Christian centuries by pouring WATER ON THE HEAD, and not by immersion, and the Ik early Christians did believe that our Lord was baptized in this manner by John the Baptizer. No other con- clusion is possible. 8. These pictures explain many passages in the writings of the early fathers, when they speak of going to the water, or being baptized in the water. They show what the fathers meant by such expressions, and that they did not mean to convey the idea of immersion, but that of baptism by pouring as represented in the pict- ures, while the baptized were standing or kneeling in the water. 9. Many of the early fathers spoke of John as bap- tizing by "pouring on of water," and of Christ being baptized of him in this way. "Lactantius, a. D. 320, furnishes us with this Scriptural sentiment: 'Sic etiam gentes baptimo; id est^ purifici sorts purfusione salver et.' 'So also He [Christ] might save the Gentiles by baptism ; that is, by the pour- ing on of the purifying dew.' ("Institutes," Book 4, Chapter 15.) The force of the expression may be thus stated, that he represents the water of baptism as falling like dew. What a beautiful figure of baptism!" (Chap- man on "Baptism," page 233.) "AuRELius Prudentius, who wrote A. D. 390, speaking of John's baptism, says : 'Purjundit fluvio ' ; he poured water on them in the river. 236 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. "Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, a few years later, says: *He [John] washes away the sins of beUevers, infusis lymphis,' by the pouring on of water." {Ibid., pp. 234- 235-) St. Bernard, A. D. 1130, speaking of the baptism of our Lord by John, says: ''Infundit aquam capiti Crea- toris creatura," "The creature poured water on the head of the Creator." (''Campbell and Rice Debate," page 135.) The passage from St. Bernard from which Dr. Rice quotes is so grand we here give it to the reader in full, both in the original Latin and the English translation, as furnished in Chapman on "Baptism," pages 138-139: ''Exuitur vestimentis suis Rex gloricB, splendor luminis, et figura substantia Dei. Joannis manibus attrectatur caro ilia swmpta de virgine, candidiorique derivata materia nudatnr in flumine, felicis Baptists manibus infundenda. Descendunt angeli, et coelorum agmina tota reverentia cur- runt ad creatorem. Baptizantem et baptizatum numina dominantia circumcingunt. Infundid aquam capiti Cre- atoris creatura nobilior, et Dei verticem mortalis dextera contrectat et contingit.^' (Divi Bernardi de sancto Joanne Baptista Sermo. p. 1688, m; Antwerp edition, 1616.) Translation. — "The King of glory, the brightness of the light, and form of the substance of God, is divested of his garments. The flesh which was taken from the Virgin, and derived from a purer source, is made naked in the river, to be affused by the hands of the happy Baptist. The angels descend, and all the host of heaven hasten in reverence to their Creator. The ruling powers surround the baptizer and the baptized. A creature of a superior kind POURS water on the head of the Creator, and a MORTAL right HAND TOUCHES AND MOISTENS THE HEAD OF GOD." Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 237 We see that down to the twelfth century the fathers and great writers of the Church beUeved that John bap- tized our Lord in the Jordan by pouring the water on His head. This was the prevaiHng beUef in the Church for at least the first thousand years after Christ, as ex- hibited in all the pictures of baptism that have come down to us from this period, and as given in the writings of such men as Aurelius Prudentius, Paulinus, Bishop of Nola, Lactantius, and St. Bernard. 2. Now let us examine the other branch of the monumental history of baptism. The baptismal fonts found in the ruins of the most ancient churches and in the Catacombs of Rome are like the baptismal fonts in use in modern Pedo-Baptist churches, and are not large enough to immerse even infants in, and were never intended for that purpose; but, like the fonts in Pedo-Baptist churches were used to hold the baptismal water, into which the minister dips his hand for the purpose of sprinkling the water upon the person who is baptized. I take the following from Dr. Schaff's "Apostolic Church," p. 509: "He says Dr. Robinson further adduces (s. c. and his his 'Biblical Records in Palestine,' II. 182, iii. 78), that the baptismal fonts found among the ruins of the oldest Greek churches in Palestine, as at Tekoa and Cophna, are not large enough for the immersion of adults, and were evidently not intended for that purpose." Mr. WiTHROW, in his "Catacombs of Rome," says: "The testimony of the Catacombs respecting the mode of baptism, as far as it extends, is strongly in favor of aspersion or affusion. All their pictured representa- tions of the rite indicate this mode, for which alone the early fonts seem adapted ; nor is THERE any early art EVIDENCE OF baptismal IMMERSION. It sccms incredible, 238 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. if the latter were the original and exclusive mode, of apostolic and even divine authority, that it should have left no trace in the earliest and most unconscious art records, and have been supplanted therein by a new, unscriptural, and unhistoric method. It is apparent, in- deed, from the writings of the fourth and fifth century, that many corrupt and unwarranted usages were intro- duced in connection with this Christian ordinance that greatly marred its beauty and simplicity. It is unques- tionable that at that time baptism by immersion was practiced with many superstitious and unseemly rites. That both men and women were divested of their clothing, to represent the putting off the body of sin; which, not- withstanding the greatest efforts to avoid it, inevitably produced scandal. They then received trine immersion, to imitate, says Gregory Nyssen, the three-days burial of Christ ; or, according to others, as a symbol of the Trinity. The rite was accompanied by exorcism, insufflation, unction, and confirmation, the gift of milk and hon- ey, the administration of the eucharist, the clothing in white garments, and carrying of lighted tapers, to .all which a mystical meaning was attached. **But in the evidence of the Catacombs, which are the testimony of an earlier and purer period, there is no indication of this mode of baptism, nor of those dramatic accompaniments. The marble font represented in the accompanying engraving, now in the crypt of St. Prisca within the Walls, is said to have come from the Catacombs, and to have been used for baptismal purposes by St. Peter himself; in corroboration of which it bears the somewhat apocryphal inscription, *sci. PET. baptism v.' (Sic.) The tradition at least attests its extreme an- tiquity; and its basin is quite too small for even infant immersion. Other fonts have been found in several The Scriptural Mode of Christiari Baptism. 239 other subterranean chapels, among which is one in the Catacomb Pontianus hewn out of the sohd tufa and fed by a Hving stream." We gave a description of this, accompanying the picture taken from the wall of the chapel just above the baptismal font. The monumental argument, drawn from the monu- ments of the early Church, in its pictures of baptism and its baptismal fonts that have come down to us from the remotest Christian antiquity, is unanswerable. Either branch is convincing, but taken together the argument is overwhelming as to the mode of baptism practiced in the earliest Christian centuries. We will now take up in order the testimony of the fathers and early Christian writers in regard to the mode of baptism : I. ClKment of Alexandria, A. D. 190, gives an ac- count of a backslider, who had become the captain of a band of robbers, who was reclaimed by the Apostle John, who visited the robber camp for that purpose, and was arrested and brought before the captain, who, seeing and knowing him, fled; but John followed after him, crying: "Why, my son, dost thou flee from me, thy father, un- armed and old? Son, pity me. Fear not, thou hast still hope of life. I will give account to Christ for thee. If need be, I will willingly endure thy death, as the Lord did death for us. For thee I will surrender my life. Stand, believe, Christ hath sent me." "And he, when he heard, first, stood, then looking down, threw down his arms, then trembled and wept bitterly. And as the old man approached he embraced him, speaking for himself with lamentations as he could, and BAPTIZED A SECOND TIME WITH TEARS, Concealing 240 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. only his right hand." (Ante-Nicine Library, Vol. II., page 603.) Here is a baptism, the mode of which cannot be misun- derstood ; it is by the tears running down the penitentback- slider's face, as did the water in his first baptism ! This is a baptism during the life of the Apostle John, and the narrative was handed down to the time of Clement, and ninety years after it occurred it was written out by Clement, who, in his earlier years, was a companion of apostolic men. 2. Justin Martyr comes next in order among the authentic witnesses as to the mode of baptism practiced in the early Church. He wrote his first "Apology" to the Emperor Antoninus Pius A. D. 140. Speaking on the subject of baptism, in Chapter LXI., he says: "I will also relate the manner in which we dedicated ourselves to God when we had been made new through Christ ; lest, if we omit this, we may seem to be unfair in the explanation we are writing. As many as are per- suaded and believe that which we teach and say is true, and undertake to be able to live accordingly, are in- structed to pray and to entreat God with fasting, for the remission of their sins that are past, we praying and fasting with them. Then they are brought by us where there is water, and are regenerated in the same manner in which we were ourselves regenerated. For, in the name of God the Father and Lord of the universe, and of our Saviour Jesus Christ, and of the Holy Spirit, they then receive the washing with watejr." In Chapter LXI I. he continues : "And the devils, indeed, having heard this washing published by the prophet, instigated those who enter their temples, and are about to approach them with li- The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 241 bations and burnt offerings, also To sprinkle them- selves." (Ante-Nicine Library, Vol. I., pp. 183-184.) In fragments from the lost writings of Justin he says : "By the two birds Christ is denoted, both dead as man, but living as God. He is likened to a bird, because He is understood and declared to be from above, and from heaven. And the living bird, having been dipped in the blood of the dead one, was afterward let go. For the living and divine Word was in the crucified and dead temple (of the body), as being a partaker of the passion, and yet impassable as God. "By that which took place in the running water, in which the wood and hyssop and the scarlet were dipped, is set forth the bloody passion of Christ on the cross for the salvation of those who are sprinkled with the Spirit, and the water, and the blood. Wherefore the material for purification was not provided chiefly with reference to leprosy, but with regard to the forgiveness of sins, that both leprosy might be understood to be an emblem of sin, and the things that were sacrificed an emblem of Him who was to be sacrificed for sins." {Ibid., p. 301.) On these extracts from Justin Martyr I remark : 1 . His remark, ' 'Then they are brought by us where there is water," finds its explanation in the pictures of baptism, where it is seen that Christ is always repre- sented as standing in the water, while John is pouring the water on His head. The early Christians, after the first century, always baptized in water, if they could get it, but they always baptized by affusion, as the pictures represent, and as the "Teachings of the Twelve Apostles" directs, as we shall see. 2. Justin tells us baptism is a "washing with WATER," not an immersion in water. Mr. Braden, in his debate with me in 1868, said that Justin Martyr, in the 242 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, passage quoted from his ''Apology," said they were im- mersed. Here is the passage in the "Debate": "Justin Martyr: 'They [the candidates] are led by us where there is water, and are born again in that kind of new birth in which we ourselves were born again. For upon the name of God the Father and Lord of all, and Jesus Christ our Saviour, and of the Holy Spirit, the immersion in water is performed.* "Mr. Hughey: 'Does not the gentleman know that haptidzo does not occur in that passage?' "Mr. Braden: 'He is describing a baptism, and he calls it an immersion. That is the point I am making now. He says it is a katadusis, the very word the gen- tleman says means immersion.' " ("Braden and Hughey Debate," p. 142.) Justin Martyr does not use katadusis in that pas- sage, nor any other word that means immersion. He uses louo, the very word which is so often used, as we have seen, to express the various purifications of the law, which we have seen are almost invariably performed by simple sprinkling! This is but a specimen of Mr. Braden' s accuracy in his statements. 3. He tells us this "washing" was spoken of or foretold by the prophet. Where do we find immersion foretold by any prophet? We have "washing" spoken of in Isaiah i. 16; and "sprinkling" in Isaiah lii. 15, where it is expressly said of the Lord, "So shall He sprinkle many nations" ; and in Bzekiel xxxvi. 25, where it is said, "Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you, and ye shall be clean." But nowhere in all the prophecies is there a prophecy of immersion. This is an important point. 4. This "washing" was done by sprinkling, for Justin says: "And the devils, indeed, having heard this The Scriptural Mode of^ Christian Baptism. 243 washing published by the prophet, instigated those who enter their temples, and are' about to approach them with libations and burnt offerings, also to sprinkle them- selves." The word "also" shows conclusively that the "washing" spoken of by the prophet was "also" by SPRINKLING. If it had not been, the word "also," which means "in like manner," would not have been used. 5. That this "washing" was done by sprinkling is conclusively shown by Justin calling the baptized "sprinkled with water." 6. Justin was born in Flavia Neapolis, a city of Samaria, the modern Nablouse. The date of his birth is uncertain, but it occurred between A. D. 100 and A. D. 115. He was born, at farthest, not over fifteen years after the death of the Apostle John, and probably not over five years ; and consequently he was raised with and lived among apostolic men, at least the first half of his life. He tells us in Chapter XV.: "And many, both of men and women, who have been Christ's disciples from childhood, remain pure at the age of sixty or seventy years ; and I could boast that I could produce such from every race of men." (Ibid., p. 167.) This proves that these many apostolic men and women who lived at that time, A. D. 140, were twenty or thirty years old at the time of the death of the Apostle John. These apostolic men and women certainly knew what was the teaching and practice of the apostles and the apostolic Church; and Justin had the most ample means of knowing what that teaching and practice was in regard to the mode of baptism. His testimony is therefore of the highest authority, and must be accepted as conclusive, as it harmonizes exactly with that of the most ancient pictures of baptism and the earliest bap- 244 Tlie Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. tismal fonts that have been found among the ruins of the most ancient churches and in the Catacombs. 3. Our next witness is ' 'The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles." This document bears internal evidence of having been written before the controversies arose which troubled the Church during the third and following centuries. It is referred to by Busebius and Athanasius, which shows that it was in existence and known by the great writers who lived in the early part of the fourth century. There is a passage in Clement of Alexandria, supposed to be a quotation from it, which shows that it was in existence before the close of the second cent- ury. It is generally supposed to date during the first half of the second century, and thus to be contem- porary with Justin Martyr. In Chapter VIII. we read: "And touching baptism, thus baptize: having first declared all these things, baptize in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water. But if thou have not living water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, then in warm. But if thou have neither, pour on The head water thrice in the name of the Father and Son and Holy Spirit. Before baptism let the baptizer and the baptized fast, and any others who can, but thou shalt bid the baptized to fast one or two days before." Now turn to the pictures of baptism, which were (one of them at least, that of the picture of the baptism of Christ in the Catacomb Ponzianus) made about the time "The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles" was written, and you will see what is meant by "baptizing in living water." Some of the other pictures, which repre- sent the baptized kneeling in a family bath, explain what is meant by "baptizing in other water, either cold or warm"; and others, the baptism on dry land, standing The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 245 or kneeling. But the baptism is always done by POURING, whether the baptized is standing in the river in Uving water, or kneeHng in a bath-tub in other water, either cold or warm, or kneeling on the ground. No immersionist could ever give such directions concerning the manner of baptizing, and the fact that the writer of "The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles" did give such directions concerning baptism proves that he was not an immersionist. If the baptism here "in living water, or other" means immersion, as our immersionist friends contend, then immersion is only one mode of baptism, and is of no more value than baptism by pouring. There is no running around to find water to baptize in; if it is not convenient, the baptism proceeds without it. Take whatever view of this passage we may, it uproots the whole immersionist theory, and proves that the immer- sionists' contention as to the meaning of baptidzo is without foundation. The discovery of "The Teachings of the Twelve Apostles" was a fatal blow to immersion. 4. Our fourth witness is the Epistle of Barnabas, written by someone, certainly not by the companion of Paul, and not earlier than the first quarter and perhaps the latter half of the second century. There are three passages in this epistle which refer to baptism. Two of them, taken by themselves, might seem to favor immer- sion; but when taken in connection with the pictorial representations in that early age and the other passage, they can give no support to the idea of immersion. Yet Mr. Campbell quotes these passages as sustaining immer- sion, never referring to the other, where it is manifest he refers to baptism by sprinkling, nor to the fact that the pictorial representations of baptism generally rep- resent it as being performed in the water, BUT always by 246 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. POURING. This explains the supposed references to im- mersion and harmonizes them with the reference to sprinkling. We will now give the whole testimony of this epistle on the subject. The passages which Mr. Campbell quotes are the following: "Blessed are they who, placing their trust in the cross, have gone down into the water." And, "This meaneth that we indeed descend into the water full of sins and defilement, but we come up having fruit in our hearts, having the fear [of God] and trust in Jesus in our spirit." (Ante-Nicine Library, Chapter XI., Volume I., p. 144.) In Chapter VIII. we have the other passage, which clearly teaches that baptism was performed by sprinkling. He is speaking of the heifer being a type of Christ, and says: "Now what do you suppose this to be a type of, that a command was given to Israel, that men of the greatest wickedness should offer a heifer, and slay and burn it, and then that boys should take the ashes, and put them into a vessel, and bind round a stick purple wool along with hyssop, and that thus the boys should sprinkle the people one by one in order that they might be purified from their sins. Consider how he speaks to you with sim- plicity. The calf is Jesus; the sinful men offering it are those who led Him to the slaughter. But now the men are no longer guilty, are no longer regarded as sinners, and the boys that sprinkle are those that have pro- claimed to us the remission of sins and purification of heart." (Ibid., p. 142.) In these passages the writer teaches that remission of sins and purity of heart are obtained in the water, and they are received by sprinkling ! Now look at the ancient pictures of baptism, and see the perfect agreement be- The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 247 tween them and these passages in this epistle. Yet Mr. Campbell and writers on the side of immersion in general never refer to this passage, nor to the harmony of all these passages taken together with the early pictures of baptism. The Epistle of Barnabas must be given up as a witness for immersion. 5. The "Similitudes" of Hermas, placed at about A. D. 160. In Similitude Ninth the building of the Church is represented by the building of a tower of stones. At first the stones were brought up from the deep, which were the saints which died before Christ. They were righteous, but needed the seal, evidently baptism. The apostles descended into the deep and gave them the "seal." This could not have been immersion, for they were already immersed in the "deep." How the "seal" was given to them we do not know ; we do know the figure used will not permit immersion, for they had descended into the deep long before the apostles did. They went down dead, but came up alive. But they went down, many of them, centuries before they came up. After- ward the apostles went down alone, and gave them the "seal." "These," he says, "went down alive and came up alive," but the others, the Old Testament saints, "went down dead, but came up alive," having received the "seal" in the under world. Clearly, the idea of im- mersion, or the representation of baptism by immersion, is out of the question. After the stones ceased to ascend out of the deep, then the builders went to the mountains and quarried stones to finish the tower; that is, got sinners converted, and builded them into the Church. "Then these virgins [the builders] took besoms and cleansed all the place around, and took away all the rubbish and threw on water; which being done, the place became delightful 248 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism, and the tower became beauteous." ("Apostolic Fath- ers," Archbishop Wake's Translation, p. 309.) The tower was "cleansed by throwing on water" — that is, BY SPRINKLING. The stones which were brought from the mountains were cleansed by water being "thrown on"; that is, the sinners converted after Christ came, and brought into the Church, were baptized by sprink- ling — the "seal" was given to them in this manner. Hermas, when understood and taken together, can furnish no support for immersion, but expressly teaches baptism by SPRINKLING. These fanciful writers, whoever they may have been, must be studied as a whole in order to understand them. An isolated passage taken from them here and there can prove nothing, nor can they give a true representation of what these apocryphal writers really teach. 6. iRENiBus, Bishop of Lyons, was born A. D. 120 and died A. D. 202. Irengeus was a disciple or pupil of Polycarp, who was a pupil of St. John. He was but one step removed from the apostle. In his Third Book against Heresies, Chapter XVI., speaking of the unity of the body of Christ, he says : "For as a compacted lump of dough cannot be formed of dry wheat without fluid matter, nor can a loaf possess unity, so, in like manner, neither could we, being many, be made one in Christ Jesus without the water from heaven. And as dry earth does not bring forth unless it receive moisture, in like manner we also, being originally a dry tree, could never have brought forth fruit unto life without the voluntary rain From above. For our bod- ies have received unity among themselves by means of that laver which leads to incorruption ; but our souls, by means of the Spirit." (Ante-Nicine Library, Vol. I., pp. 444-445.) The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 249 Irenaeus calls baptism "the voluntary rain from above." Unquestionably baptism was administered in his day by affusion. This is the more apparent because he couples it with the baptism of the Holy Spirit, which is always performed by pouring, never by immersion. He further states : "The Lord, receiving this as a gift from His Father, does Himself also confer it upon those who are partakers of Himself, sending The Holy Spirit UPON ALL THE EARTH." 7. Clement of Alexandria, whom Dr. Conant says flourished during the last quarter of the second century and the first quarter of the third — that is, from A. D. 175 to A. D. 225, says: "That may be an image or picture of baptism which was handed down from Moses to the poets, thus: Pe- nelope, having washed, and having on clean garments sprinkled (hudranamene) , or having sprinkled herself, goes to prayer ; and Telemachus, having washed his hands at the hoary sea, prayed to Athena. This was a custom of the Jews, in this manner also, many times to bap- tize themselves upon a couch." Here is the passage from Clement in Greek : *'i7 ctx^^ T'ov /8a7rTto"/LUXTOs €Lrj av Kat rf ck MtuvVcws rrapa- 8e8ofi€vrj Tots TTOiryrats wSe ttoos: ** 'H o' v8pr]vafX€V€ KaOapa \poi tlpxir IKoxxra (OdySS. iv. 759). rj rEryveAoTTT; lirl rrjv evyrjv tp^erai — Tr)\€fjia)(0^ Be. "Xelpas VLdfJi€vo^ TroXtTys dXos evxer' 'A^tJvt; (OdySS. ii. 261). "*E^OS TOVTO 'lovStWV ft)S Kat TO TToAXaKtS €7rt KOLTTJ fiaTT- TiieaOaL. ' ' Was it a custom of the Jews to baptize themselves "in the same manner also" as Telemachus baptized him- self, by washing his hands, while reclining at their meals "upon a couch"? We know that this was a prevailing —17— 250 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. custom among the Jews. Turn again to the passage in Sozomen's "Ecclesiastical History," page 52, where he gives the account of the Empress Helena, the mother of the great Constantine, performing this service for the sacred virgins. He says: "During her residence in Je- rusalem, it is related that she assembled the sacred virgins at a feast, ministered to them at supper, presented them with food, POURED WATER ON THEIR HANDS, and per- formed other similar services customary on such oc- casions." Mark that Sozomen says: "This was cus- tomary on such occasions." Socrates and Theodoret both give the same circumstance in their ecclesiastical histories. I have looked carefully through Conant's "Bap- tizein" three times, and cannot find this passage from Clement in it. I find other passages from Clement, but not this. Did he avoid it on purpose? It looks very much like it; for this passage is quoted more frequently by the opponents of immersion, than any other passage from Clement; yet Dr. Conant, knowing this, does not refer to it at all ! Our immersionist friends claim that ''epi koite bap- tizesthai" does not mean "baptized upon a couch," but that it means "purification from defilement contracted from a couch"; and that such baptisms or purifications were always performed by immersion. For a full dis- cussion of this position, I must refer the reader to Ap- pendix A, "Braden and Hughey Debate," pp. 656-669, where he will see the utter fallacy of this position, and all the arguments in its support completely answered and the absurdity of the position fully exposed. It is only necessary for me to remark here : I. Defilement might be contracted from a couch or bed, under the law, from various causes. (See Leviti- cus XV.) The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. 251 2. Whenever purification or baptism is spoken of by Greek writers, from defilement contracted from a couch or bed, or dead body, or from wrath, etc., the preposition ape, not epi, is used with the noun indicating the source of defilement. The learned Dr. DaIvK, in his "Judaic Baptism," says: ''The use of airo [apo] with the noun [indicating the source of defilement from which cleansing has been ef- fected is established use; thus we have baptized from [airo], a dead body. "Also Justin Martyr says: 'Baptize the soul from wrath [ape orges], and from [apo'\ covetousness, and from \apo] envy, and from [apo'\ hatred,' etc. "The use of ctti [ept\ under such circumstances is unheard of. If then (rv^vyiav [suzugian] might be omit- ted, ttTTo [apo] would, in its absence, be most impera- tively required to be retained, in a reference to the bap- tism contemplated. Its absence alone is disproof of the assumed reference." ("Judaic Baptism," pp. 182 and 278.) Only a few pages before this passage, Clement him- self, in speaking of "baptism from the couch," on ac- count of the very defilement our immersionist friends contend he is speaking of in this passage, uses both apo and suzugian, and koites and haptizesthai. If he had said SiMPiyY, "And now Divine Providence does not indeed enjoin him to baptize himself apo koites'* ("from the couch"), we would not have known what defilement he was speaking of, contracted from the couch. But when he adds ''kata suzugian^' he specifies the defilement, and it is the very defilement our immersionist friends contend he refers to in the passage under consideration. Here is the passage where he is speaking of the defilement our opponents contend he is speaking of in this passage : \ 252 The Scriptural Mode of Christian Baptism. " ovBe fikv Tov OLTTO Trjs Kara a'v^vA6av koltt)^ o/xot'