MY tenth argument shall be deduced from those passages which Pedobaptists usually urge against baptizo and baptisma, as not indicating immersion. The very passages which they quote against our views, together with their efforts at explaining them away, greatly confirm and establish our conclusions. We shall commence with Mark vii. 3, 4, and Luke xi. 38: Except they wash their hands oft, eat not. And when they come from market, except they wash (baptisoontai) they eat not. And many such things they hold, as the washings (baptismous) of cups, pots, brazen vessels, and beds (or couches). Luke xi. 38: The Pharisees wondered that Jesus had not washed (ebaptisthe) before dinner.

      These washings before dinner, reported by Mark and Luke, contain the only two instances in which any part of baptizo is ever translated by wash, in the New Testament. And, fortunately, the antithesis between the washings here mentioned, indicated by the words employed in the original, and the facts stated, not only does not sustain the common version in translating both words by the same word, wash; but clearly intimates that the latter term, baptizo, ought here to have been rendered immerse. In verse 3d, it is nipto with pugmee, a word already shown to mean washing the hands, face, or feet, always when applied to the human person. This is true in every case in the Bible. Moreover, it has pugmee, the fist, in construction with it; that is, as Lightfoot and others interpret it, to the wrist, or so far as the fist extends. When the hand is shut, says Pollux, as quoted by Carson, the outside is called pugmee.¹ Now, as this limits the first washing, the second, being expressed by baptizo, and having no part of the body mentioned as its peculiar regimen, according to the usage of the Greeks, (and the Romans, in the case of lavo,) the whole body is meant. Hence, they dip or bathe themselves after being to market; whereas, ordinarily, they wash their hands only up to the wrist. [166]

      Both Campbell and Macknight² translated the word in this passage, immerse. Some of our lexicons, such as Schleusner's, Scapula's, Stokius's, &c., quote this passage in proof that washing is sometimes the effect of immersion. The meaning of baptisoontai, here, as in Luke xi. 38, being thus clearly indicated, (for Luke speaks of the same custom as Mark,) we have, then, found baptizo, in its eighty occurrences in the New Testament, uniformly signifying immersion; and never sprinkling nor pouring.

      Baptismos is also translated washing, in Heb. ix. 2, as well as in Mark vii. 4. The diverse washings of cups, pots, brazen vessels, tables, couches, persons, and things mentioned among the traditions of the elders and the institutions of the law, were for ceremonial cleansing. Hence, all by immersion; inasmuch as nothing was ever cleansed, since the world began, by sprinkling water upon it. Meantime, I assume this fact, but I will hereafter demonstrate it:--Macknight and Campbell were much more learned in the true meaning of this word than the whole college of the king's translators. Macknight translates the "diverse washings" of the common version by "diverse immersions," Heb. ix. 2.

      Baptismos is never applied to the Christian ordinance,--baptisma generally; and, therefore, our translators never translated the latter but by baptism, and baptismos three times by washing. We have, then, in one hundred and twenty occurrences of baptizo, baptismos, baptisma, and baptistees, not found a single exception.

      But we find bapto, in Daniel, in some of its flexions, twice translated wet; and that, too, by the dew of heaven! It was, then, a general wetting--profuse as immersion; and this metonymy, of the effect for the cause, clearly indicates that in the days of the Septuagint, the idea of sprinkling was never associated with bapto. Dews are more wetting in this country,--much more so in Asia, in the environs of the Euphrates,--than any Pedobaptist sprinkling since the council of Ravenna. Soaking, wetting, dyeing, colouring, and even washing, it has always been conceded, are frequent meanings of bapto; because, as all the dictionaries explain, these processes are accomplished by immersing. Indeed, these metaphors all go to show that [167] immersion was the proper and fixed meaning of the term; for, unless things were covered in some way, they could neither be dyed, coloured, washed, soaked, or even thoroughly wet.

      But it is frequently urged, with great vehemence, that the baptism of the Holy Spirit promised in the New Testament, was said to be accomplished by pouring out of the Spirit; and, hence, pouring is the true baptism! This passes for conclusive logic with thousands; and yet nothing is much more preposterous. There can, possibly, be no analogy between the pouring of water and the pouring out of the Spirit. There is no resemblance between the Spirit and water; and, consequently, there can be none in the pouring of them out. But the Spirit of God is compared to a well of water springing up within us. Is that baptism, by the force of comparison? If so, the Spirit is compared to the wind blowing; and it is compared to a person breathing upon another, &c. Shall we, then, say that any, or all of these, are supposed to resemble baptism? Many other such phrases there are; and, certainly there is as much propriety in supposing that breathing, blowing, or springing up are quite as analogous to baptism as pouring out; and that, if pouring be baptism, then are breathing, blowing, and springing up, baptism!

      But pouring out of the Spirit is never called baptism. It is, strictly, the preparation for it; just as the tanner or the fuller pours out water into his vat, in order to prepare for immersing into it the subjects of these processes. So God poured out the gifts of the Spirit most copiously on Pentecost, that the disciples might be subjected to, or immersed in, all these influences! Such is my understanding of a very bold metaphor. But, as I am so fond of Pedobaptist authority, I shall show that some of the most learned of them are with us here also.

      I find a rich cluster of these Pedobaptist grapes, just ready to my hand, in Booth's Reply to Dr. Williams; and I will just transfer it, leaves and all, to my page.

      Gurtlerus: "Baptism in the Holy Spirit, is immersion into the pure waters of the holy Spirit; or a rich and abundant communication of his gifts. For he on whom the Holy Spirit is poured out, is, as it were, immersed into him."

      Bp. Reynolds: "The Spirit, under the gospel, is compared--to water: and that not a little measure, to sprinkle, or bedew, but to BAPTIZE the faithful in, (Matt. iii. 11; Acts i. 5;) and [168] that not in a font, or vessel, which grows less and less, but in a spring, or living river."

      Ikenius: "The Greek word, baptismos, denotes the immersion of a thing, or a person, into something. Here, also, [Matt. iii. 11, compared with Luke iii. 16,] the baptism of fire, or that which is performed in fire, must signify, according to the same simplicity of the letter, an immission, or immersion, into fire--and this the rather, because here, to baptize in the Spirit and in fire are not only not connected, but also opposed to being baptized in water."

      Le Clerc: "He shall baptize you in the Holy Spirit. As I plunge you in water, he shall plunge you, so to speak, in the Holy Spirit."

      Casaubon: "To baptize is to immerse--and in this sense they apostles are truly said to be baptized; for the house in which this was done was filled with the Holy Ghost, so that the apostles seemed to be plunged into it, as into a fish-pool."

      Grotius: To be baptized, here, is not to be slightly sprinkled; but to have the Holy Spirit abundantly poured upon them."

      Mr. Leigh: "Baptized; that is, drown you all over, dip you into the ocean of his grace; opposite to the sprinkling which was in the law."

      Abp. Tillotson: "It [the sound from heaven, Acts ii. 2] filled all the house. This is that which our Saviour calls baptizing with the Holy Ghost. So that they who sat in the house were, as it were, immersed in the Holy Ghost, as they who were buried with water, were overwhelmed and covered all over with water, which is the proper notion of baptism."

      Bp. Hopkins: "Those that are baptized with the Spirit are, as it were, plunged into that heavenly flame, whose searching energy devours all their dross, tin and base alloy."

      Mr. H. Dodwell: "The words of our Saviour were made good, Ye shall be baptized (plunged or covered) with the Holy Spirit, as John baptized with water, without it."

      "Thus modern Pedobaptists who practised pouring or sprinkling. Let us now hear one of the ancients, who wrote in the Greek language and practised immersion. Cyril, of Jerusalem, who lived in the fourth century, speaks in the following manner:--'As he who is plunged in water and baptized, is encompassed by the water on every side, so are they that are wholly baptized by the Spirit. There [under the Mosaic economy] the servants of God were partakers of the Holy Spirit; but here they were perfectly baptized, or immersed of him.' These testimonies are quite sufficient, one would imagine, to vindicate our sense of the term baptize, when used allusively with reference to the gifts and influences of the Holy Spirit."

      If, then, so many learned Pedobaptists can themselves [169] reconcile this style to immersion, why should any of them complain of our so attempting? One question more. If baptism be pouring, why do they sprinkle? Are pouring and sprinkling the same action?

      But I have yet another objection from which an argument may be drawn:--'Arise, and be baptized, Saul, said Ananias; and Saul arose and was baptized." A clear proof that Paul was baptized standing; consequently, not immersed!!

      In Luke's writings alone, we have this idiom eight times--'Anastas, with an imperative immediately following, and without a conjunction or a comma, is found in Luke xvii. 19; xxii. 46; Acts ix. 11; x. 13, 20; xi. 7; xxii. 10, 16. In every instance, it indicates a divine command from the Lord in person, or from a supernatural agent acting for him. Nothing expressed by the term rise, different from the action to be performed. In no instance does the precept arise terminate the action. It never means two actions in any one case. It is not arise and be baptized. It is an idiom of expressing one immediate action.

      The idiom always changes when an action different from rising up is intended. Another imperative form, with a copulative of some kind, intimates two actions: Acts viii. 26; ix. 6, 34; xxvi. 16. In all these it is anasteethi, followed by a copulative, rise and stand upon thy feet, rise and go into the city, &c. In these last cases, there is something more than mere earnestness and authority expressed. There are two distinct imperatives: do this and do that. But anastas poreuouo is quite a different idiom. In this case, rising is no more than an adjunct. It is not a distinct precept; therefore, it is never rendered stand up.

      Almost every orator, indeed, in a persuasive and exhortatory address, in our language, uses the term rise when an erect position or a mere change of position is never thought of. In this way, it is used ten times for one in any other sense, especially in warm and ardent appeals:--Rise, citizens!--rise, sinners!--rise, men and let us do our duty. In this common sense import of the term did Ananias address Paul.

      From the whole premises, I argue that if Ananias intended to sprinkle Paul, he would not have commanded him to rise and be baptized. For immersion, he must go to the water; for sprinkling, the water could have been brought to him. The efforts made by some Pedobaptists to make it appear from this passage [170] that Paul was baptized standing up are alike indicative of their humble attainments in Greek literature, as well as of the inveteracy of their prejudices. No man, so far as known to me, of any eminence for Greek literature, has ever made such an attempt. When all the objections against immersion are considered, one by one, we may conclude, with Professor Stuart--

      "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."

      The three last words, "but not always," founded on such passages as I have examined, are built upon too slender a basis for so strong a man.

[CBAC 166-171]