invariably. In Rev. xix. 13. "bebamenon haimati," perhaps, ought not to have been rendered "dipped in blood," but stained with blood. Compare verse 15. and Is. lxiii. 1-3. But bapto is never used to denote the ordinance of baptism. Batizo is the word used, which has not, precisely the same signification with baptö its primitive.

According to a late judicious writer, such kind of derivatives are twice as likely to differ from their primitive words, as to agree with them, in signification. According to him, baptizo properly signifies to wet, or wash, wholly or in part, with or without dipping.* The mode of baptism, then, cannot be ascertained by the signification of the word baptizo; for it signifies to wash, without defining the mode. In Matt. iii. 11. we read "baptizo humas en hudati ;" and in Mark i. 8. "ebaptisa humas en hudati," but in Luke iii. 16. "Hudati baptizo humas," without the preposition; and in Acts i. 5. " ebaptisen hudati." In whatever mode John baptized, it is plain, that in the two last instances, it would be improper to render the verb immerse. It appears by the general

*See Sweat's Critical Investigation of the mode of Baptism.

account given of baptism in the New Testa ment, that it denotes washing; and our transla tors seem to have been wise in rendering bap tizo, baptize, and baptismos, baptism, when either John's baptism, or Christian baptism, is spoken of. The command to baptize is not the same as the command to immerse; nor is it the same, as a command to wash by total im mersion. Baptizo, and the verbal noun baptismos, sometimes, in the New Testament, pretty evidently signify washing, in a mode different from total immersion.

We have an instance of this in the washing of the Jews, when they came from the market. "The Pharisees, and all the Jews, except they [nipsontai] wash their hands oft, eat not." "And when they come from the market, except they [baptisontai] wash, they eat not."* Probably, baptizomai in this passage means more than washing the hands merely. The Jews, we may suppose, considered themselves more than usually defiled by being in the market. But, though baptizomai in this passage probably means more than washing the hands, yet it does not appear to mean total immersion. For had the Jews considered themselves so defiled by having been in the market, that it was-ne

*Mark vii. 3, 4.

cessary for them to wash their whole bodies, would they not have viewed it equally necessary to wash their clothes? The clothes of a person would have been defiled before the greater part of his body, and would have needed washing more. In certain cases, the Israelites were commanded, in the law, to wash their clothes, and bathe themselves in water.

In many cases they were required by the law to wash their clothes, without being requir ed to wash their flesh; but in no case were persons required by the law to wash their flesh, without being expressly required to wash their clothes; except that the high priest was requir ed to wash his flesh, when he put on those holy garments, which he wore only one day in a year, and when he put them off, after his solemn services in the sanctuary. If the Jews had felt themselves obliged by the tradition of the elders to wash their whole bodies, when the law required no such washing, would not their superstition have led them to cleanse their clothes? But are we to suppose, that the Pharisees, and all the Jews, every time they came from the market, before they ate, washed their clothes, and bathed themselves in water?

Another instance, in which baptizo signifies washing, without total immersion, we have in

the following narrative. "A certain Pharisee besought Jesus to dine with him; and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled, that he had not first [ebaptisthe, been baptized] washed before dinner."* Jesus had been among a concourse of people. The Pharisee, probably, considered him defiled, much in the same manner, as if he had been in the market, and wondered, that he was not baptized before dinner, or washed as the Jews were, when they came from the market. But did he expect that Jesus would be immersed before dinner? If this Pharisee had water pots standing in his dining room, after the manner of the purifying of the Jews, did he wonder, that Jesus was not washed by total immersion, before he sat down to dine? Does not baptizo in this instance, appear to signify such a washing, as the Pharisee supposed might be decently performed, at a water pot, in a dining room? It is worthy of notice, that Mark uses exactly the same Greek word, to express the baptism of Christ by John. The Pharisee marvelled, that Jesus had not first [ebaptisthe] been baptized; and Jesus [ebaptisthe] "was baptized" by "John in Jordan.”

*Luke xi, 37, 38.

If baptizo evidently signifies a partial washing, in one case, why may it not be so taken, in the other?

It is doubtful, whether all those washings, which Mark calls baptismous,* were performed in the way of total immersion. Is it not likely, that the Jews, in their superstitious washings, in some measure, imitated those washings which their law required?† The writer of the epistle to the Hebrews, speaking of the rites of the Mosaic law, says "divers washings;" "diaphorois baptismois," divers baptisms. The law required various washings; washings were to be performed on different occasions, and in different ways. Moses washed Aaron and his sons with water, in the presence of the congregation. Aaron and his sons were to wash their hands and feet at the laver, whenever they went into the tabernacle, or ministered at the altar of burnt offering. Aaron was to wash his flesh" in water" or "with water," on the great day of annual atonement. Though it is likely, that when Moses consecrated Aaron and his sons, he gave them a very different washing from that which they were continually to give

t

* See Mark vii. 4.

Heb. ix. 10.

† See Lev. vi. 28. and Numb. xix. 16. Ex. xxx. 18-21.

Lev. viii. 3-6.

Lev. xvi. 4, 24.