OUR fifth argument in support of this proposition shall consist of the testimony of reformers, annotators, paraphrasts, and critics, touching the meaning of the terms in dispute, and the ancient usage,--selected from those only who favoured sprinkling or pouring as a more convenient, comfortable, and polite usage.

      At the head of the list, we must place Luther.

      In the 5th of the Smalcald articles drawn up by Luther, he says, "Baptism is nothing else than the word of God with immersion in water."

      "Baptism is a Greek word, and may be translated immersion, as when we immerse something in water, that it may be wholly [144] covered. And although it is almost wholly abolished, (for they do, not dip the whole children, but only pour a little water on them,) they ought nevertheless to be wholly immersed, and then immediately drawn out; for that the etymology of the word seems to demand." "Washing of sins is attributed to baptism; it is truly, indeed, attributed, but the signification is softer and slower than it can express baptism, which is rather a sign both of death and resurrection. Being moved by this reason, I would have those that are to be baptized, to be altogether dipt into the water, as the word doth sound, and the mystery doth signify."¹

      Calvin: "The word baptizo signifies to immerse, and it is certain that immersion was the practice of the ancient church."²

      Grotius: The great Grotius says, "That this rite was wont to be performed by immersion, and not by perfusion, appears both by the propriety of the word and the places chosen for its administration, John iii. 23, Acts viii. 38, and by the many allusions of the Apostles, which cannot be referred to sprinkling, Rom. vi. 3, 4, Col. ii. 12. The custom of perfusion or aspersion seems to have obtained some time after, in favor of such who lying dangerously ill were desirous to dedicate themselves to Christ. These were called Clinics by other Christians. See Cyprian's Epistle to Magnus to this purpose. Nor should we wonder that the old Latin fathers use tingere for baptizare, seeing the Latin word tingo does properly and generally signify the same as mersare, to immerse or plunge."³

      Dionysius Petavius: "And indeed," says he, "immersion is properly styled baptismos, though at present we content ourselves with pouring water on the head, which in Greek is called perixusis, that is, perichysm, if I may so Anglicize, but not baptism."

      Casaubon: "For the manner of baptizing," says he, "was to plunge or dip them into the water, as even the word baptizein itself plainly enough shows, which, as it does not signify dunein to sink down and perish, neither certainly does it signify epipolazein, to swim or float a-top; these three words, epipolazein, baptizein, dunein, being very different."

      Vitringa: "The act of baptizing is the immersion of believers in water. This expresses the force of the word."⁴

      Salmasius: "Baptism is immersion, and was administered in former times according to the force and meaning of the word."⁵

      Hospinianus: "Christ commanded us to be baptized; by which it is certain immersion is signified."⁶

      Zanchius: "The proper signification of baptize is to immerse, lunge under, to overwhelm in water." [145]

      Alstedius: "To baptize signifies only to immerse; not to wash, except by consequence."

      Witsius: "It cannot be denied that the native signification of the words baptein and bapteizein is to plunge, to dip."⁷

      Gurtlerus: "To baptize, among the Greeks, is undoubtedly to immerse, to dip; and baptism is immersion, dipping. Baptismos en Pneumati hagio, baptism in the Holy Spirit, is immersion into the pure waters of the Holy Spirit; for he on whom the Holy Spirit is poured out, is, as it were, immersed into him. Baptismos en puri, 'baptism in fire,' is a figurative expression, and signifies casting into a flame, which, like water, flows far and wide; such as the flame that consumed Jerusalem. The thing commanded by the Lord, is baptism; immersion into water."⁸

      Baddaeus: "The words baptizein and baptismos are not to be interpreted of aspersions, but always of immersion."⁹

      Ewing, of Glasgow: "Baptizo in its primary and radical sense, I cover with water. It is used to denote, 1st. I plunge, or sink completely under water."

      Leigh: "The native and proper signification of it [baptizo] is, to dip into water, or to plunge under water."

      Bossuet: "'To baptize signifies to plunge, as is granted by all the world."

      Vossius, as quoted by Gale: "The great Vossius speaks exactly to the same purpose, and, indeed, almost in the same words; for without ever taking the least notice of lavo, or the like, he expressly says, that bapto and baptizo are rendered by mergo or mergito, and tingo, yet they properly signify mergo; and tingo only by a metalepsis, i. e. as tingo implies mergo: and, therefore, he adds, tinging follows immersion, and is done by it."

      Venema: "The word baptizein, to baptize, is nowhere used in the Scripture for sprinkling."¹⁰

      Bloomfield: "There is here [Rom. vi. 4] plainly a reference to the ancient mode of baptism by immersion; and I agree with Koppe and Rosenmuller, that there is reason to regret it should have been abandoned in most Christian churches, especially as it has so evident a reference to the mystic sense of baptism."

      Scholz, on Matt. iii. 6: "Baptism consists in the immersion of the whole body in water."

      Augusti: "The word baptism, according to the etymology and usage, signifies to immerse, submerge, &c., and the choice of the word betrays an age in which the later custom of sprinkling had not been introduced."

      Buttman, in his Larger Grammar, simply puts dawn, "bapto, to immerse." [146]

      Edinburgh Reviewers of Carson's work: "They tell me (says Mr. Carson) that it was unnecessary to bring forward any one of the examples to prove that the word signifies to dip,--that I might have commenced with this as a FIXED POINT UNIVERSALLY ADMITTED."

      Before dismissing this host of witnesses, sine die, while we have the Greek lexicographers, Greek classics, Bible translators, reformers, annotators, paraphrasts, and critics before us, all concurring with perfect unanimity in giving to baptizo, the word in the apostolic commission, the primary and proper meaning of dip, immerse, plunge, and no other figurative or rhetorical meaning incompatible therewith, I shall, to relieve the reader from so much attention to the mere documentary details of evidence, institute an argument on one philological fact, or law of language, which not only gives a satisfactory reason for this truly marvellous concurrence, but also itself constitutes a new argument, so far, at least, as to show that this word never can have but one meaning. The force of this argument requires only a concession which no man can refuse, namely, that baptizo once signifies to dip or immerse. This point conceded, and, according to the law in such cases, it must always signify to dip.

      Mr. Carson, one of the most acute and able critics on this subject, affirms that words of mode have but one meaning, and that baptizo is a verb of mode. To that canon I unhesitatingly assent. It is incontrovertibly true. Still, whether baptizo be a word of mode may be questioned. It is, indeed, denied by some, and although without proper evidence, still, in this case, it is to my mind objectionable, for two reasons:--1st. In the profound policies of the mere ingenious Pedobaptists, the whole controversy concerning the baptismal action was converted into a mere question of mode. The less educated and unsuspecting Baptists were ensnared by it; and, as their more prudent opponents designed, for some two centuries there have been on the theatre no less than three modes of baptism. One baptism with three modes! A grand ecclesiastical hoax! All have been entrammelled by it. And yet, like the lunar hoax, it only required a single reflection to annihilate it. Translate the one baptism and the three modes by their proper significants, and the sophistry is exposed. One immersion by any one of the modes, sprinkling, pouring, or immersing! Or substitute one pouring, by the mode of immersion, sprinkling, or pouring! I do not [147] recollect to have ever seen this sophism exposed before my debate with Mr. Walker, in June, 1820.

      But, in the second place, it may be asked, of what action is immersion the mode? It is not necessarily, but accidentally a mode of washing, because there is neither soap nor water in baptizo. It is not necessarily a mode of staining, dyeing, colouring, purifying, any more than of polluting, burning, or destroying. Of what general action is it, then, the mode? ? It may, indeed, be perchance a mode of cleansing, purifying, washing, colouring, &c., but only by accident, and not from necessity. For these two reasons, I am unwilling, under all the ordinary circumstances of this case, to adopt the definition that "baptizo is a word of mode." I would rather say, it is a word of specific action.

      All verbs of action are either generic or specific. They indicate indefinite or definite action. There is nothing, for example, specific in the words cleanse, wash, purify, sanctify, go, come, &c. There is nothing specific in the word travel; but there is in the words ride, walk, swim, sail. There is nothing specific in the word move; but there is in creep, run, hop, leap, fly, &c. Now, as Dr. G. Campbell has well observed, "There is a great difference between the mention of any thing as a duty, especially of that consequence that the promises or threats of religion depend on the performance or neglect of it, and the bare recording of an event as fact; as in the former the words ought to be as special as possible, that there may be no mistake in the application of the promise, no pretence for saying that more was exacted than was expressed in the conditions; but in relating facts, it is often a matter of indifference whether the terms be general or special."¹¹

      In the judgment, then, of this greatest and soundest of biblical critics, baptizo ought to be a specific term, and not one of vague, indefinite, or generic sense. And that it is so, a little reflection, methinks, will render most apparent to all. Something was to be done into the name of the Father, &c. This is of itself evidence that the action was specific; for, if the name into which it was to be performed was specific, certainly it is as important that the action itself should have been specifically commanded. Nay, had it not been specifically commanded, how could the [148] ordinance be obeyed ? He could not possibly mean "purify them," for the Messiah, having presented no form of purification, could not have expected obedience, unless he had specified the action to be done.

      But there is no need of any other proof that baptizo indicates a specific act, than the two facts:--1st, That it is to be applied to all manner of subjects or substances,--to wine, oil, blood, water, sand, debt, grief, sorrow, spirit; and that it signifies to dip, at least, sometimes, says the whole learned world. Now, a word that once signifies to immerse, never can signify to pour or sprinkle; because no three acts are more specifically different than these; and because it is essential that a specific term have but one meaning: for example, if to walk and to ride were both indicated by the same word, who, on hearing that word, could know which action was performed? If, then, baptizo once mean dip, it never can mean sprinkle, pour, or purify, unless these actions are identically the same.

      So obvious is this, that a person might risk even his life upon the fact that, if immersing a person was a capital offence, and if A B, when charged with it by the judges, proves that he only sprinkled water upon him there is not a jury of twelve men compos mentis in America that will not exonerate him from the crime. This view of the subject is susceptible of much amplification. But we have space only to state it in unambiguous terms. Baptizo means to dip, by consent of the whole world, and being a specific word, it never can have but one meaning, just as the word sprinkle never can mean to dip.

[CBAC 144-149]