Q. But regarding baptizo as truly and properly a diminutive, what follows?

A. It must of necessity "be somewhat less in its signification" than bapto; and therefore less favouring the idea of total immersion.

Q. Is the word baptizo ever used in the SEPTUAGINT version?

A. Yes.

Q. Is it there used for the washing or bathing the whole person?

A. The writer of the Letters to Bishop Hoadley, beforementioned, concedes that "the word baptizo is never but once used, in those very numerous places of the Old Testament, where bathing the person is commanded."

Q. What one instance is this?

A. It is found in 2 Kings v. 14, of our version, or 4th Kings v. 14, of the Septuagint version: "And Naaman went down and baptized himself (ebaptisato) in Jordan seven times, according to the saying of Elisha."

Q. Is there any certainty that Naaman dipped himself altogether under the water?

A. The matter is at best doubtful. The prophet said, "Wash seven times," doubtless, in reference to the law, which enjoined, that the leper should be sprinkled seven times for his cleansing. (Lev. xiv. 7.) The Hebrew word, RaCHATZ, which Elisha used, and is rendered by our translators, " Wash," does not necessarily imply the washing the whole person: but, according to Professor Lee, it is used for washing any part of the body, and is rendered by Montanus, in the passage in question, in his interlinear translation, by the Latin lavo, which signifies, wash, wet, moisten, bedew, besprinkle. The word employed by the prophet conveys, then, no idea of immersion. Evident, also, is it, that the Hebrew word TaBa L, rendered in our version "dip," is, in this instance, used synonymously with "wash;" and so it is translated by Montanus, in the margin, by abluo, which signifies, to wash. "Go," says Elisha," and wash seven times." "And he went and dipped," washed himself, "according to the saying of the man of God." Now, baptizo is used by THE SEVENTY, to convey this precise idea of washing. That this great and honourable man (v. 1,) -this mighty general of the Syrian host, plunged himself from the river's bank seven times successively, when he was commanded only to wash, and that ceremonially, is exceedingly improbable. From the indications of his temper

recorded in the narrative, he was evidently not disposed to do more than the prophet required; and that he did not, is plain, for he acted "according to the saying of the man of God," who commanded him simply to wash. His disease was only local, (v. 11,) and only a local application of the water was necessary. How he was baptized we learn from Lev. xiv. 7, 'And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean.' This was the method God had appointed; and we can hardly suppose the prophet would have enjoined any other, at least, not till it is proved."-REV. Wм. THORN.

Q. Seeing, then, that there is no clear, satisfactory instance in the SEPTUAGINT, in which baptizo is used for immersing the whole body, can you cite any instances from general Greek writers, in which baptizo is used to signify something less than a total immersion in water?

A. Yes. The following instances are quoted from POND'S Treatise:

"PORPHYRY mentions a river in India, into which, if an offender enters, or attempts to pass through it, he is immediately baptized up to his head. Baptizetai mekri kephales." Here immersion, or a going wholly under water, is out of the question. The head was out of the water; and yet the person was baptized, according to the Greek writer, but not SO according to the exclusive immersionists. We believe Porphyry.

"MR. SYDENHAM quotes the following sentence, as delivered by the oracle:-"Baptize (baptize) the bottle; but it is not right to plunge it wholly under water.'" Here is another plain instance, in which baptizo is used for something less than immersion. According to this direction of the oracle, a thing may be baptized, and yet not be wholly under water.

"ORIGEN, speaking to the Pharisees of the wood on the altar, over which water was profusely poured at the command of Elijah, (see 1 Kings xviii. 33,) expressly says, that this wood was baptized. This term, then, was used by ORIGEN (one of the earliest Christian fathers) to signify pouring.'

"EUSEBIUS mentions a fountain near the church at Tyre, where the people washed previous to their entering the temple. This washing," he observes, "resembled baptism."

The following instances are quoted from THORN's Treatise:

“ÆLIAN. Having baptized with precious ointment a garland woven of roses.' The garland was surely not dipped

into a box of ointment, but the ointment was poured or sprinkled on the garland."

"IAMBLICHUS.-Baptize not in the periranterion. This was a small vessel like those kept at the doors of Roman Catholic chapels.-(Potter's Ant.) The act here is evidently sprinkling."

"JUSTIN. Sprinkling with holy water was invented by demons, in imitation of the true baptism, signified by the Prophets, (Isaiah lii. 15; Ezek. xxxvi. 25,) that their votaries might have their pretended purifications by water.' Here sprinkling and baptism are used synonymously."

"SUIDAS. Being carried before a tribunal, he was scourged by the executioners, and, flowing with blood, baptized the hollow of his hand.' That is, some of the flowing blood fell into the hollow of his hand, and thus baptized it."

Q. Are you disposed now to appeal to the New Testament, in proof that baptizo signifies less than immersion?

A. Yes: the following instances are in point:

MARK vii. 4.—"And when they (the Pharisees and all the Jews) come from market, except they wash, (baptisontai, or be baptized,) they eat not."

Q. Does the context throw any light on the practice here mentioned?

A. Yes the Evangelist, having stated the fact, that the Pharisees and certain of the Scribes found fault with our Lord's disciples for having eaten "with defiled, that is to say, unwashen, hands," gives the reason of their censure: "For the Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, eat not. And when they come from the market, except they wash, (baptize themselves,) they eat not." Here, it is evident that the baptizing of themselves, and the washing of their hands, are phrases used synonymously. Application of water, therefore, to a PART of the person, if the Evangelist knew what he was writing, is truly and properly BAPTISM. Moreover, it is absurd, unless the case can be clearly proved, to suppose, that all the Jews, would not take a mouthful of food without dipping themselves head and ears under water, and, in addition to this, that every time they came from the market, they restrained themselves from all food, until they practised a similar immersion.

Q. Can you state anything respecting the mode in which the Jews washed their hands? Was it by immersing them in water, or by having water poured upon them?

B

A. "It is well known that their customary mode of washing hands was by affusion, for which purpose they had persons employed; as in the case of Elijah, (2 Kings iii. 11,) where we are told of water being poured on his hands. (The reader is requested to consult the passage itself.) A modern traveller (Sir R. Kerr Porter) informs us that he found that to be the usage in Persia. An attendant,' says he, poured water from a jug, on our right hands, which we held in succession over a basin.' And Dr. Pocock has fully established, by numerous competent authorities, pouring from a vessel, as the Jewish mode, Non lavant manus nisi e vase affusa aqua. ."-GEORGE BURNS, D.D.

Q. Will you mention the other instances to which you referred?

-

A. MARK vii. 4.- "And many other things there be, which they (the Jews) have received to hold, as the washing (baptismous, baptisms) of cups, and pots, brazen vessels and tables."

N.B. The word baptismous is used in a similar connexion, by our Lord, in the 8th verse.

Q. Was this washing used for cleanliness, or for ceremonial purposes?

A. Not for cleanliness; for other persons, as well as the Jews, clean their pots and cups, &c. ; but for ceremonial purposes. This is further evident from the consideration that these baptisms were observed in obedience to "the tradition of the elders." In all probability, the Jews would observe the divinely appointed mode of ceremonially purifying similar objects. "And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, and sprinkle it upon the tent, and upon all the vessels." (Num. xix. 18.) At all events, our Lord has decided, that the Pharisees ceremonially washed only the "outside of the cup and platter," and therefore did not dip them. The washings, or baptisms, therefore, mentioned in this passage, were not immersions.

HEBREWS ix. 10.-Speaking of the ceremonial purifications of the law, St. Paul says, "Which stood only in meats and drinks, and divers washings (baptismois, baptisms) and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation."

The only question here to be decided, is, whether these baptisms were immersions ONLY.

The place where these ceremonial purifications were divinely appointed, is against the supposition that they were. "It is remarkable, that all the laws of Jewish purification were

given to the Hebrews in a place (a wilderness) where there was comparatively no water, and when the performance of this rite, in the sense understood by our opponents, must have appeared impracticable to every person that heard them, and must have really been so for at least forty years: and yet what Moses enjoined, in this respect, was never once objected to as impossible or even difficult, nor, that we learn, was it ever neglected through a scarcity of water, at any period, place, or under any circumstances. When the Legislator commanded them all to bathe, cleanse, wash, or sanctify them selves, they understood him to mean something that was then and there feasible; but the immersion of their whole body as often as the law rendered purification requisite, which Mr. Booth (a Baptist writer) says, was 'daily,' and that for two millions of people, and during forty years in this desert, this waste howling wilderness, was a thing impracticable. In fact, the local circumstances of the Hebrews at the time the laws of purification were given, are the best means we possess of understanding the import of the terms employed; that is, in the sense those circumstances must have caused them to understand them."-THORN.

The terms employed are also against the supposition. "The words employed by Moses by no means imply a total immersion. We read of bathing the body ceremonially in the following texts:-Lev. xv. 5, 8, 11, 13, 21, 22, 27; xvi. 26, 28; xvii. 15, 16; Num. xix. 7, 8, 19. In all these passages the Hebrew word is RACHATZ, which means simply to wash. (See Taylor's Heb. Con. in loc.) It is translated in every place by LOUO in the Septuagint, and by LAVO in the Latin. We read of washing the body for Levitical lustration in the ensuing texts :-Exod. xxix. 4; xl. 12, 32; Lev. xiv. 8, 9; xv. 16; xvi. 14, 24; xvii. 16; xxii. 6. In all these we have the same Hebrew original, with similar Greek and Latin translations. To contend that the divine Lawgiver commanded the people to plunge themselves, or one another, under water for legal impurities, is not only opposed to the circumstances of the case, but even to the plain letter of Scripture. "THORN.

Another consideration is fatal to the supposition in question. "The personal ablutions may be divided into two heads: what people did to themselves, and what others did to them, -or, in other words, what was self-operated, and what was ministerial."

There is no evidence, that the people dipped themselves.