"2. These examples are drawn from writers in almost every department of literature and science; from poets, rhetoricians, philosophers, critics, historians, geographers; from writers on husbandry, on medicine, on natural history, on grammar, on theology; from almost every form and style of composition, romances, epistles, orations, fables, odes, epigrams, sermons, narratives; from writers of various nations and religions, Pagan, Jew, and Christian, belonging to many different countries, and through a long succession of ages. "3. In all, the word has retained its ground-meaning, without change. From the earliest age of Greek literature, down to its close (a period of about two thousand years), not an example has been found in which the word has any other meaning. There is no instance in which it signifies to make a partial application of water by affusion or sprinkling, or to cleanse, to purify, apart from the literal act of immersion as the means of cleansing or purifying. [Note. When part of an object is said to be immersed, the word is applied to that part alone, and the rest of the object is expressly excepted from its application.] "4. The object immersed or submerged is represented as being plunged, or as sinking down, into the ingulphing fluid or other substance; or the immersing element overflows and thus ingulfs the object. The former is the more common "In the metaphorical application of the word, both cases are recognised as the ground of the usage. case. "5. The immersing substance is usually water, that being the element in which the act most commonly takes place. Other substances mentioned are, wine, a dye (for colouring), blood, breast-milk and ointment, oil, fire, brine, mud, and slime, at the bottom of standing-pools, the human breast, the neck, the human body.* "6. The word immerse, as well as its synonyms immerge, &c., expresses the full import of the Greek word BAPTIZEIN. The idea of emersion is not included in the meaning of the Greek word. It means simply to put into or under water or other substance, without determining whether the object immersed sinks to the bottom, or floats in the liquid, or is immediately taken out. This is determined, not by the word itself, but by the nature of the case, and by the design of the act in each particular case. A living being, put under water without intending to drown him, is of course to be immediately withdrawn from it; and this is to be understood whenever the word is used with reference to such a case. But the Greek word is also used when a living being is put under water for the purpose of drowning, and of course is left to perish in the immersing element. "7. The word is used of the most familiar acts and occurrences of common life; as IMMERSING (BAPTIZING) wool in a dye, to colour it; steel in the fire, to heat it for tempering; heated iron (steel) in water, to temper it; an object in a liquid, in order to drink it; a person in the waves, in sport or revenge; a ship in the sea, by overloading it; an animal in the water, to drown it; tow in oil, for burning; salt in water, to dissolve it; a pole into the bed of a river, to reach something at the bottom; a bladder in water, by forcing it under; the hollow hand in water, to fill it; the hand in blood, to besmear it; a branch in a liquid, in order to sprinkle it about; a medical preparation (a pessary of cantharides) in breast-milk and ointment, to allay the irritation; a sword into an enemy's breast; sliced turnips in brine, for a salad. "8. The ground-idea is preserved in the several metaphorical uses of the word. This is evident from many examples. The idea of a total submergence lies at the basis of these metaphorical uses. Anything short of this, such as the mere sprinkling or pouring of water on an object, viewed as the ground of these metaphorical senses, would be simply absurd. "9. In Christian Greek literature the word retained its distinctive meaning, and continued to be freely used both in the literal and metaphorical sense. "10. In the metaphorical sense it is often used absolutely, meaning to whelm in (or with) ruin, troubles, calamities, sufferings, sorrows, business, perplexity, intoxication. (See Exs.)... That in this absolute use, the literal image on which the usage is founded was not lost from view, is evident. . "The word is constructed in connection with the immersing substance as follows: * Dr. Conant refers to the examples in each case, adduced and numbered in a previous part of his work, "1. With the prep. into before the name of the element into which an object is plunged or immersed, expressing fully the act of passing from one element into another. "2. With the prep. in, denoting locality, or the element in or within which the act takes place.. "3. Also with the simple dative as a local case, denoting locality; viz., the element in which, or where, the act is performed.. This construction (confined mostly to poetry) is required in some examples, and is the probable one in others. One man immerses another in (not with) waves of the sea; a heated mass of iron (steel) is plunged or immersed in (not with) water, to cool it; what is enclosed in the human body is immersed in (not with) it; a weapon is plunged in (not with) the neck. "4. In the metaphorical sense of whelming, overwhelming (submerging, as with an overflowing flood), the passive is construed with the usual expression of the efficient cause, and both the active and passive with the dative of means or instrument (by or with).. "5. Rarely with the prep. down (down into, i.e., below the external surface). ." • (pp. 87-96.) Whilst we believe that a Greek, or a person using the Greek language, if commanded to baptize an article in water, would no more think of sprinkling it with a few drops of water, than an English servant would if commanded to immerse it in water, we believe Prof. Godwin to be as correct in his assertion that "baptizo is not a word of frequent occurrence in the classics" (Bap., p. 14), as he is in his assumptions by which he endeavours to prove that this common word has in the New Testament a totally different meaning from what it has in classic writings. Also, without fear of untruthfulness, we durst use some of Dr. Wilson's words, and say, in reference to heathen as well as patristic testimony: "The utmost research and ingenuity have hitherto failed to extract from them a particle of evidence" against immersion or in favour of sprinkling. We may close this section with two or three inquiries:-Is not the word Divinely chosen, a word which for many hundreds of years before, and for hundreds of years after, the commencement of the Christian era, has evidently been used by Greek writers when they intended to designate immersion, and invariably to designate nothing less than immersion? "If the Head of the church had designed to use a term prescribing immersion as specifically as possible, does the Greek language afford another word as specific as baptizo?" Is it not grossly deceiving the readers of Pædobaptist publications to teach that both in classic and sacred literature we find baptism "including almost every conceivable application of water"? And is it honourable, in the presence of existing facts, to represent it as "probable, though not quite certain, that baptize in the New Testament signifies to immerse"? "And with the genitive alone." Thus Pindar: (“Abaptismos eimi. . . halmas) I am unimmersed (or unimmersible) in the brine." Also in some editions of The Argonautic Expedition the genitive similarly occurs. SECTION IV. ON EVIDENCE FROM ANCIENT VERSIONS THAT BAPTISM IS IMMERSION. Archb. TRENCH.-"In a matter of such high concernment as this, the least is much. To have cast in even a mite into this treasury of the Lord, to have brought one smallest stone which it is permitted to build into the walls of this house, to have detected one smallest blemish that would not otherwise have been removed, to have made, in any way whatever, a single suggestion of lasting value towards the end here in view, is something for which to be ever thankful.”—On the Auth. Ver., pp. 1-6. Dr. T. J. CONANT.-"To obscure the word which describes this form is, therefore, to obscure to the mind of the recipient the nature of the rite, the specific ideas symbolized in it, and the obligations to which it binds him."-On Bap., p. 158. T. H. HORNE.-"Direct testimony is to be obtained, in the first place, from those writers to whom the language which is to be investigated by us was vernacular; next from ancient versions made by persons to whom the language was not vernacular, but who lived while it was a spoken language, and by individuals who were acquainted with it."-Intro., vol. ii., p. 375. Dr. J. BENNETT.-"Next to the writers on theology are the translators of the Scriptures, as witnesses to what the ancient church thought to be the mind of God in His revelation to man."Cong. Lec., p. 3. Dr. HALLEY.-"I know no better evidence than translations made without reference to the question."-Cong. Lec., p. 357. IF those who have translated the Greek Testament into other languages, have used a word for baptizo which means to immerse, and not to pour, or to sprinkle, it proves their convictions respecting the import of the word chosen by the inspired writers whereby to designate the ordinance which Christ has enjoined. Indeed, if to baptize is to immerse, "it must (to say the very least) be doubtful whether it can also mean to sprinkle or pour. Immerse, sprinkle, and pour, are three distinct ideas, expressed by different words in all languages. No man in his right mind would think of immersing an object, and saying he sprinkled it; or of sprinkling an object, and saying he immersed it. This remark is as applicable to the Greek as to the English. Indeed, it is well known that the Greek excels in the precision and fidelity with which it expresses different ideas, and even different shades of the same idea, by different words."-I. T. Hinton's His. of Bap., p. 31. Also, if these versions give for baptism words in different languages which signify to immerse, and not to pour, or to sprinkle, it shows that the convictions of the translators were decidedly opposed to what has been, as we think, very erroneously maintained, that the inspired writers used the verb baptizo, and the nouns derived from it, in a sense which previously they had never possessed, and which at that very time these words, when used by other persons, did not possess; yea, in a sense not only different from the signification they possessed when proceeding from the mouths of others, but decidedly distinct from, and opposed to, such a signification; yes, and equally distinct from, and opposed to, the signification which they sometimes possessed when used by themselves, as is taught by our opponents almost without an exception. The old Syriac, or Peshito, is acknowledged to be the most ancient version extant. It was translated as early as the beginning of the second century, where Syriac and Greek were both perfectly understood, and where many of the apostles, it is believed, spent most of their lives. This version uniformly renders baptizo by amad, which all authorities. agree to be in its ordinary meaning identical with immerse. Dr. Henderson, a Pædobaptist, has given it as his opinion, that "when the Lord gave commandment to the apostles to baptize all nations, there is every reason to believe that He employed the identical word found in the Peshito-Syriac version." And he maintains that etymologically it signifies to stand up, to stand erect. He says: "It obviously suggests the idea of a person's taking his station at or in the water, in order to have the act of baptism performed upon him." This is the same Dr. who also gives his assent to Dr. Beecher's hypothesis, that baptizo means to purify, and to Mr. Ewing's classification of the meanings of baptizo. Also, Dr. Bennett, having similarly spoken of the Syriac amad, with equal effrontery says: "The standing ceremony, then, which is the direct opposite of the dipping ceremony, is the phrase employed by the mother of all churches" (Cong. Lec., p. 201). He also says: "The moral idea of a man taking his standing, or station, in the Christian church, may be the meaning." This idea of the Rev. Dr. is as much opposed to the baptizing of infants as to the rendering of the Syriac word by Syriac lexicographers. We do not say that the Syriac amad resembled the Greek baptizo in the explicitness and oneness of its import, or that the Syriac was a perfect synonyme of the Greek word Divinely chosen: we say that it certainly means to immerse, and not to pour, or to sprinkle. But what say the lexicons? 66 Castel, and his editor Michaelis, Buxtorf, and Schaaf, are unanimous. The first gives the following meanings:-" Ablutus est, baptizatus est (was washed clean, was baptized). Aphel, immersit, baptizavit (has immersed, has baptized)." Buxtorf gives: Baptizari, intingi, ablui, abluere se (to be baptized, to be dipped in, to be washed clean, to wash one's self clean). Ethpeel, Idem. Aphel, baptizare (to baptize)." Schaaf: 'Ablui se, ablutus, intinctus, immersus in aquam, baptizatus est (to be washed clean as to one's self; was washed clean, dipped in, immersed into water, baptized. Ethpeel, Idem quod Peal (the same as Peal). Aphel, Immersit, baptizavit.' Gutbier, in the small lexicon affixed to his edition of the Syriac Testament, gives the meaning, Baptizavit, baptizatus est (he baptized, he was baptized). It. sustentavit (he upheld)." The above extracts from the Syriac lexicons, excepting the translation of the Latin words, are from the Critical Examination, &c., by Dr. F. W. Gotch, who immediately adds, in reference to the last meaning given by Gutbier, "but without any reference to support the last meaning; and it is apparently introduced simply for the purpose of deducing from the verb the noun columna. With this exception, the authority of the lexicons referred to is altogether against any such meaning as to stand. Michaelis, in his edition of Castell's Syriac Lexicon, says: "In this signification of baptizing not a few compare with the Hebrew amad, stetit [he stood], so that stare is stare in flumine, illoque mergi [to stand in the river, and in it to be immersed]. To me it seems more probable that it is altogether different from amad, and has arisen through some permutation of the letters from [Arabic] amath, submergere [to submerge]. The signification of standing common to the other Oriental tongues I do not find among the Syrians, save in the derivative omud which follows, and which is cited by Castell from one place (Ex. xiii. 22), but which you will find almost everywhere where in Hebrew is read pillar of cloud, and pillar of fire." How far the other authorities accord with the meaning given to baptizo in Greek lexicons, any reader, by comparing them, may ascertain. Whether our Saviour used the word amad in the solemn commission which He gave to His disciples, and when in other interviews with them He spoke of the ordinance of baptism, we do not pretend to say. It is sufficient for us to know that the inspired writers have invariably used baptizo, the meaning of which we conceive to have been fully proved to be, to immerse. Nor is it doubtful to our minds that the Syriac amad signifies to immerse, and not to pour or sprinkle. We do not say that the word to wash, when immersion is implied as the mode of washing, might not sometimes be given as the rendering either of the Greek or the Syriac word. The word wash, especially followed by himself, has not uncommonly been used in the sense of bathe. Dr. F. W. Gotch, having given in few words more particular and comprehensive information on Versions than any writer with whom we are acquainted, we shall give the result of his investigations, and then conclude this part of the subject with a few explanatory and applicatory observations. He says: "The conclusions to which the investigation leads us are-With regard to the ancient versions, in all of them, with three exceptions (namely, the Latin from the third century, and the Sahidic and Basmuric), the word baptizo is translated by words purely native; and the three excepted versions adopted the Greek word, not by way of transference, but in consequence of the term having become current in the languages. "Of native words employed, the Syriac, Arabic, Ethiopic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, and earliest Latin, all signify to immerse; the Anglo-Saxon, both to immerse and to cleanse; the Persic, to wash; and the Slavonic, to cross. meaning of the word adopted from the Greek, in Sahidic, Basmuric, and Latin, being also to immerse. The 2. With regard to the modern versions examined, the Eastern generally adhere to the ancient Eastern versions, and translate by words signifying to immerse. Most of the Gothic dialects, namely, the German, Swedish, Dutch, Danish, &c., employ altered forms of the Gothic word signifying to dip. The Icelandic use a word meaning cleanse. The Slavic dialects follow the ancient Slavonic; and the languages formed from the Latin, including the English, adopt the word baptizo; though with respect to the English, the words wash and christen were formerly used as well as baptize. "It may perhaps be acceptable to place these results together in a tabular form, as follows: |