BY English translators, we understand those who have made into our vernacular a translation of any of the books of the Apostolic writings, or of the whole volume. In the late London Hexapla, which lies before me, first published by Baxter; London, 1841, there are the six most prominent English versions; viz. that of Wicklif, A. D. 1380; Tyndale, 1584; Cranmer, 1539; Geneva, 1557; Anglo Rhemish, 1582; Authorized, 1611. Besides these six versions, of most distinguished fame, I have more than as many others of much respectability; and some of them, upon the whole, of equal literary merit,--such as Doddridge's, Thompson's, Wesley's, Penn's, the Anonymous, Campbell's Four Gospels, McKnight's Epistles, Stuart's version of the Romans and Hebrews--works of much merit, besides some others of minor fame, not including a Baptist version, which, although I am in many points better pleased with it than with the common, I deem it improper to admit into this class of witnesses. Now, of some fifteen complete versions on my shelf, besides several partial ones, not one has ever translated any word of the Bapto family by the words, sprinkle, pout, or purify.

      But I make my appeal, not only to the translations themselves, but to the authors of them,--to as many of them, at least, as [139] have written or spoken freely on the subject, to whose writings and opinions we have had access, directly or indirectly. William Tyndale: "The plunging into water signifieth that we die and are buried with Christ, as concerning the old life of sin, which is Adam; and the pulling out again signifieth that we rise again, with Christ in a new life." Beza: "Baptizein does not signify to wash but by consequence; for, properly, it signifies to immerse for the sake of dyeing or tinging."--Vol. ii. p. 27, 28. The translators of the common version were all, or nearly all, genuine Episcopalians, and, at the very time they made the version, were accustomed to use a liturgy which made it the minister's duty, in the sacrament of baptism, "to take the child and dip it in the water" contained in the font. I have seen copies of James' version, printed in 1611, which contain the psalms and the service of the church, in which frequent allusions are made to immersion, all indicative of the fact that it was then regarded as the primitive and proper baptism; consequently, these translators accepted the king's appointment and restrictions, to retain baptize and baptism, rather than translate them, and on no occasion favoured the innovation of sprinkling by any rendering, or note marginal, in that translation.

      Doddridge, on Acts viii. 38, says, "Baptism was generally administered by immersion, though I see no proof that it was essential to the institution. It would be very unnatural to suppose that they went down to the water merely that Philip might take up a little water in his hand to pour on the eunuch. A person of his dignity had, no doubt, many vessels with him in his baggage on such a journey through so desert a country--a precaution absolutely necessary for travellers in these parts, and never omitted by them."¹ On Romans vi. 4, Doddridge repeats the same views, saying--"It seems the part of candour to confess, that here is an allusion to the manner of baptizing by immersion, as most usual in these early times." Of course, then, this erudite and pious Congregationalist could never render any member of this family by any word intimating any action different from immersion.

      McKnight, also, not only in his Epistles, but also in his Harmony, bears witness to the true and proper meaning of the word. [140] He substitutes dip for wash in mark vii. 4: For when they come from market, except they dip themselves, they eat not.²

      The divers washings of the ninth of the Hebrews, common version, he translates into divers immersions, and thus restores two of the mistranslations of baptizo back to their proper meaning. In his comments on Rom. vi. and Col. ii., and in many other passages, he boldly asserts immersion as the proper baptism, practised and taught in the primitive age:

      "In baptism, the rite of initiation into the Christian Church, the baptized person is buried under the water, as one put to death with Christ on account of sin, in order that he may be strongly impressed with a sense of the malignity of sin, and excited to hate it as the greatest of evils, ver. 3. Moreover, in the same rite, the baptized person being raised up out of the water, after being washed, he is thereby taught that he shall be raised from the dead with Christ, by the power of the Father, to live with him for ever in heaven, provided he is prepared for that life by true holiness, ver. 4, 5. Farther, by their baptism, believers are laid under the strongest obligations to holiness, because it represents their old man, their old corrupt nature, as crucified with Christ, to teach them that their body, which sin claimed as its property, being put to death, was no longer to serve sin as its slave."

      "Christ's baptism was not the baptism of repentance; for he never committed any sin: but, as was observed, Prelim. Ess. 1, at the beginning, he submitted to be baptized, that is, to be buried under the water by John and to be raised out of it again, as an emblem of his future death and resurrection. In like manner, the baptism of believers is emblematical of their own death, burial, and resurrection. See Col. ii. 12, note 1. Perhaps also it is a commemoration of Christ's baptism.

      "He tells the Romans, that since they were planted together in the likeness of his death, namely, when they were baptized, they shall be also planted together in the likeness of his resurrection, by being raised to a new life in the body at the last day.

      "The burying of Christ and of believers, first in the water of baptism and afterwards in the earth, is fitly enough compared to the planting of seeds in the earth, because the effect in both cases is a reviviscence to a state of greater perfection."

      "Being buried with him in baptism. Christ began his ministry with receiving baptism from John, to show in an emblematic manner, that he was to die and to rise again from the dead. And after his resurrection, he commanded his disciples to initiate mankind into his religion, by baptizing them, as he himself had [141] been baptized, to show, that although they shall die, like him, through the malignity of sin, yet, as certainly as he rose from the dead, believers shall be raised at the last day, with bodies fashioned like to his glorious body. Wherefore, his disciples having been baptized, as he was, and for the very same purpose, they are fitly said to be buried with Christ in baptism; and in baptism to be raised with him."

      "The circumcision which Christ performs, being accomplished by the influence of the doctrines of the gospel on the minds of believers; and their belief of these doctrines being founded on their belief of the resurrection of Christ, their belief of that great miracle is justly represented as the means, whereby they are raised out of the water of baptism new creatures, who, as the apostle observes in the next verse, are, like Christ, to be raised at the last day, to an eternal life in the body."³

      Dr. George Campbell need scarcely be named in this place, inasmuch as his views of baptize and baptismos are so clearly, fully, and repeatedly declared. A single passage from him is all that we shall quote at present:

      "'Undergo an immersion like that which I must undergo,' to baptisma ho ego baptizomai baptisthenai. English translation: To be baptized with the baptism that I am to be baptized with. The primitive signification of baptisms is immersion; of baptizein, to immerse, plunge, or overwhelm. The noun ought never to be rendered baptism, nor the verb to baptize, but when employed in relation to a religious ceremony. The verb baptizein sometimes, and baptein, which is synonymous, often occurs in the Septuagint and Apocryphal writings, and is always rendered in the common version by one or other of these words, to dip, to wash, to plunge. When the original expression, therefore, is rendered in familiar language, there appears nothing harsh or extraordinary in the metaphor. Phrases like these, to be overwhelmed with grief, to be immersed in affliction, will be found common in most languages."

      "The word baptizein, both in sacred authors and classical, signifies, to dip, to plunge, to immerse, and was rendered by Tertullian, the oldest of the Latin fathers, tingere, the term used for dyeing cloth, which was by immersion. It is always construed suitably to his meaning. Thus it is, en udati, en to Iordane. But I should not lay much stress on the preposition en, which, answering to the Hebrew beth, may denote with as well as in, did not the whole phraseology, in regard to this ceremony, concur in evincing the same thing. Accordingly, the baptized are [142] said anabainein, to arise, emerge, or ascend, Matthew iii. 17, apo tou udatos, and Acts viii. 39, ek tou udatos, from or out of the water. Let it be observed further, that the verbs raino and rantizo, used in Scripture for sprinkling, are never construed in this manner. I will sprinkle you with clean water, is in the Septuagint, Raino eph' umas katharon hudor, and not as baptizo is always construed. Raino umas en katharo udati See also Ex. xxxix. 21. Leviticus vi. 27, xvi. 14. Had baptizo been here employed in the sense of raino, I sprinkle, (which as far as I know, it never is, in any use sacred or classical,) the expression would doubtless have been Ego baptizo eph umas udor, or apo tou udatou, agreeably to the examples referred to. When, therefore, the Greek word baptizo is adopted, I may say, rather than translated into modern languages, the mode of construction ought to be preserved so far as may conduce to suggest its original import. It is to be regretted that we have so much evidence that even good and learned men allow their judgments to be warped by the sentiments and customs of the sect which they prefer. The true partisan, of whatever denomination, always inclines to correct the diction of the Spirit by that of the party.⁴

      Beza observes, on Mark vii. 4: "Christ commanded us to be baptized; by which word, it is certain, immersion is signified; baptizesthai, in this place, is more than niptein; because that seems to respect the whole body, this only the hands. Nor does baptizein signify to wash, except by consequence; for it properly signifies to immerse for the sake of dyeing. To be baptized in water, signifies no other than to be immersed in water, which is the external ceremony of baptism. Baptizo differs from the verb dunai, which signifies to plunge in the deep and to drown."

      After such testimonies as the above, it would seem superfluous to add from Wesley such concessions as his remarks on Rom. vi. 4: "We are buried with him," &c. "Alluding here to the ancient manner of baptizing by immersion;" or to the concessions of Stuart, who has said:

      "That the Greek fathers, and the Latin ones who were familiar with the Greek, understood the usual import of the word baptizo, would hardly seem to be capable of a denial. That they might be confirmed in their view of the import of this word, by common usage among the Greek classic authors, we have seen in the first part of this dissertation.

      "For myself, then, I cheerfully admit that baptizo in the New Testament, when applied to the rite of baptism, does in all probability involve the idea, that this rite was usually performed by immersion, but not always." [143]

      Evident, then, it is, not only that the English translators did not even translate baptizo, or its lineage, by the words pour, sprinkle, or purify, but that they could not so translate them from their knowledge of the ancient customs and the classic and sacred use of these terms.

      Thus, then, we have, by a new, distinct, and independent class of witnesses, of the highest celebrity for eminent literary attainments and for highly cultivated and refined conscientiousness, furnished another argument in proof of our first proposition, which, without regard to any other, would seem sufficient to establish it beyond the possibility of refutation. For, will not that distinguished doctor, Common Sense, whom all believe, naturally conclude that so many learned, conscientious, and religious men, having so much at stake themselves, continually sprinkling in the name of the Lord, would, if they could, have given some countenance to their own favourite practice, by translating some one or more of these one hundred and twenty-six occurrences of these terms in a way favourable to their own beloved practice. Certain it is, then, that their practice had some other foundation than the meaning of the word in the apostolic commission, concerning which foundation we may hereafter speak.

[CBAC 139-144]