Note 89 — NOW IN PRESS

Dr. Wall, in the appendix of his reply to Dr. Gale, mentions a remarkable instance, in which the mode of wetting or of applying water was certainly that of pouring, and not that of dipping. It is as follows:—St. Origen, when commenting on the Baptism of John, enquires thus of the Pharisees; “How could you think that Elias, when he should come, would baptize, who did not in Ahab’s time baptize the wood upon the altar, which was to be washed before it was burnt by the Lord’s appearing in fire? But he ordered the priest to do that; not once only, but he says, do it the second time; and they did it the second time. And do it the third time; and they did it the third time. Therefore, how could it be likely that this man, who did not then baptize, but assigned that work to others, would himself baptize, when he should, according to the prophecy of Malachi, again appear here on earth?”

We find in the first book of Kings, xviii. 33, that the order given by Elijah was to fill four barrels with water, and pour it on the wood and on the burnt offering. This pouring of water, Origen, that accurate scholar, who lived in the second century, and was well acquainted with the Greek classics, and Greek Testament, calls baptizing. In the very same sentence, he makes use of the Greek word Baptizo four times; twice with express reference to the Baptism of John; and twice with express reference to that Baptism which took place in the days of the Prophet Elijah; which baptism, we are expressly told, was not performed by dipping the wood and sacrifice into water, but by pouring water upon them.

It is also evident, even from the frequent use of the word baptizo, by heathen authors, that it does not always signify a total immersion. Mr. Walker tells us, “that Porphyrie 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 mechri Kephales.) Here a person is said to be baptized, although his head did not go under, but remained above the water. This certainly was not a total immersion.

“He also instances a case from Mr. Sydenham, as delivered by the oracle (viz. askos baptize, dunai de toi ou themis esti.”) In which instance, if dunai signifies to plunge wholly under water, as it certainly does, then baptize must signify something less than a total immersion.—“Baptize him as a bottle, but it is not lawful to plunge him wholly under the water.” The baptism here described, resembles that of a blown bladder or bottle of leather, which when put into the water, will not sink to the bottom, but swim upon the top.

The same critical author mentions an instance from Schrevelii’s and Robertson’s Lexicons, 19th chapter, in which case, the primitive word bapto signifies a wetting with water, that was certainly less, and very different from a total dipping or immersion. The sentence is this. (“Baptei men askon, udor de ugron dunei pote.”) “He indeed baptizeth a bladder or bottle, but it never goeth under the liquid water.”

To these instances, we might add a well known case, taken from a poem attributed to Homer, called the battle of the frogs and the mice, in which the lake is said to be baptized by the blood of a frog. (Ebapteto de aimati limne porphureo.) This lake was not dipped into the blood of a frog; it was only bespattered and tinged therewith.

We could easily multiply authorities if it were necessary. It appears undeniably evident from the Greek classicks, and from learned writers and commentators, both ancient and modern, that the word baptizo has other significations besides that of a total dipping or immersion.

The most celebrated and respectable Lexicographers and criticks have often translated baptizo into the following Latin words, viz. baptizo, mergo, immergo, tingo, intingo, lave, abluo, madefacio, purgo, mundo. No one, I presume, will pretend that all these words are mentioned as being perfectly synonimous—of the same meaning exactly. And certainly if the word baptizo signify any thing less or different from a total immersion, then persons may be baptized in some other mode.

Besides, if it had been the intention of Christ and of his Apostles, to specify the mode, or to have restricted all christians to one and the same mode of baptizing, they might, for this purpose, have selected from the Greek language words of the most unequivocal and definite signification. If it had been their intention to specify the mode of sprinkling, they might have used the word Rantizo; if the mode of pouring, they might have used the word Ekcheo; if that mode of bathing or washing, which is performed by the application of water with friction or rubbing, they might have used the word Louo; and if it had been their intention to specify the mode of dipping, they might have used the word Dupto or Duno, &c.

Reed’s Apology.