AS in your response to my last letter you express yourself entirely satisfied with the force of the argument based upon the usage of baptizo in the Septuagint, we are prepared to go forward.

The importance of this showing as to the accepted usage of the word at the time the New Testament was written cannot be overestimated; for thus it appears that this word was well understood among the Jews to mean just what I have claimed. It conveyed to those who heard Christ's teaching no other idea than that of ceremonial cleansing by water without regard to the mode of its application. This Greek translation of the sacred writings was the one with which they were more familiar than they were even with the Hebrew Bible. It is from the Septuagint that Christ and the apostles generally quote.

True the word is found only three times in the Septuagint, but that is enough to illustrate the usage; and it is interesting to notice that in one of these three the baptism was by sprinkling, in one by immersion, in the other certainly, or almost certainly, not by immersion and probably by pouring. But whatever the mode of applying the water the word baptizo is used only in the general sense of ceremonial cleansing. Naaman baptized himself by immersion in the running Jordan. The man who had touched a dead body was baptized by sprinkling. Judith baptized herself at the fountain by sprinkling or pouring.

THE JEWS WERE THUS ALREADY ACCUSTOMED, AND HAD BEEN ACCUSTOMED FOR TWO HUNDRED YEARS OR MORE, to using this word in this sense.

Does the meaning in the New Testament correspond with this usage?

To this it might be answered: "Of course it must have corresponded to this, for the Septuagint constituted the basis of their language." But I do not propose to assume so much as this. On the contrary, if you will have the patience to follow me, I will refer to every passage in which the word occurs. It is most fitting to begin with that found in Hebrews 9:10. You will see why. It is because the writer is referring to Jewish ordinances and customs; and these, of course, antedate those which are properly Christian.

The writer to the Hebrews is discoursing of the ceremonial dispensation "which stood only in meats and drinks and ‘divers baptisms’" (Greek, baptismois.)

In my review of the position which I had so long and so honestly occupied (as I have spoken of it in my first letter) I said to myself when I came to this verse: "Here I shall find my Baptist views well sustained; there are plenty of immersions laid down in the ceremonial law to justify the writer of this epistle in speaking of them as 'divers baptisms.' " Accordingly I set myself to making an array of them. If you have not gone through with this or some similar experiment, you will scarcely be prepared to appreciate my astonishment at not being able to find one. Purifyings there were—"divers" of them; but immersions—not one! Of course my method was to take my Hebrew concordance and trace all the passages in which tawbal was used in the Old Testament in setting forth the things required of the worshiper. As I have previously stated, I found that the word was used only sixteen times in all, and the only instance that approached a ceremonial usage, such as this verse speaks of, was Naaman's dipping or immersing himself in the Jordan; and in that case I found that he was not commanded to dip or immerse himself, but to cleanse himself. He chose to do it by immersion, and as the method of cleansing was not specified, it was proper for him to choose his own. I have not succeeded thus far in finding one instance in which anybody was required to dip or immerse himself, or to be dipped or immersed by another, from the beginning of Genesis to the end of Malachi. And yet the Epistle to the Hebrews speaks of this Old Testament Dispensation as embracing "divers baptisms."

You can readily believe that my previous notion that baptism always meant immersion received at this point another staggering blow. "Divers baptisms"-NOT ONE IMMERSION, is the way the case stands. The Hebrews, to whom this epistle was written, understood the matter. Long before this the word baptism had come to mean ceremonial water cleansing, and not immersion, in all the sacred writings. Shall we find that it never means anything else, except in a figurative sense? We shall see.

For the present we confine our thoughts to this passage and must agree, I think, that upon the assumption that baptism meant ceremonial water cleansing, everything is clear; but assume for a moment that it meant immersion, and everything is dark. More than that—what the writer to the Hebrews says is impossible to be understood at all upon that assumption.

To this may be added the evidence from the context, which plainly indicates that the reference is to the "purifyings" under the law, and not to immersions, even had there been any; for the writer goes on to say: "If the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ, who, through the Eternal Spirit, offered himself without spot to God, cleanse your conscience from dead works to serve the living God?" (Heb. 9:13, 11.)

The ceremonial purifyings of the Old Testament Dispensation contrasted with the spiritual cleansing wrought through the blood of Christ is the obvious scope of the entire passage. Our translation uses the word "washings" where it is baptismois in the Greek; but the word "purifyings" or "cleansings" would be preferable; for it appears from the passage itself that the writer has in mind the purifyings that were by sprinkling—that word being introduced no less than three times within nine verses. Read at your leisure the whole chapter, and you will see that I am not mistaken in my interpretation of it. I think that I do not speak too strongIy when I say that "divers immersions" is an utterly impossible version of the words which are so rendered by the Baptist Union.

An allusion to Jewish customs that comes next in order is that found in the first part of the seventh chapter of Mark. I quote the verses:

"There are gathered together unto him the Pharisees and certain of the scribes who had come from Jerusalem, and had seen that some of the disciples ate their bread with defiled, that is, with unwashen hands: for the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands with the fist, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders; and when they come from the market, except they baptize themselves, they eat not; and many other things there be which they have received to hold, as the baptizings of cups and pots, and brazen vessels, and tables."

This is a very interesting passage. I have given it my own translation, which I will proceed to explain and defend. The word pugme I have translated literally-"with the fist." In the old version it is translated "oft"; in the new version "diligently." I think that there is more light upon this point than has generally been seen hitherto, and after thorough study of the matter I have been entirely clear that the rendering which I have given it, suggested by M. C. Hazard in The Congregationalist, is the true one. But to that I will come again presently.

The first thing I wish to call your attention to is the practice to which allusion is here made of baptizing themselves whenever they returned from the market. That this was immersion is incredible. Everybody in the East goes often to the marketplace. It is a large open square and is the great public resort. It would require, with many, several immersions a day. Even "bathing," as we have seen, was not performed by immersion, and this "baptizing," of which Mark speaks, was obviously for ceremonial cleansing. The people had always known that even after having touched a dead body the "baptizing" was by sprinkling. The ceremonial cleansing from the leprosy was by sprinkling. "The priest shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from the leprosy seven times" (Lev. 14:7). At the public market one might have unknowingly touched some leper, or some unclean beast, or some one who was unclean from having touched a dead body; and it was not an unnatural thing that he should conclude that it was a proper precaution to cleanse himself upon his return home; and the first thing he would think of was to do it by sprinkling. HE WOULD NEVER THINK OF DOING IT BY IMMERSION, there not being a single requirement for immersion in the whole Mosaic code. Moreover it must be by WATER IN MOTION. "Running water"—"living water" was always prescribed (see Lev. 14:5, 6, 51, 52; 15:13; Num. 19:17). This is a most important point to be noticed; and I beg of you to read the passages which I have indicated, so as to fix that point in mind thoroughly. As we have already seen, NO BATHING TUB FOR IMMERSION WAS EVER USED. When such a tub was used in connection with the bathing of the whole person, the bather used it simply for a receptacle of the water after it had been sprinkled or poured upon the body. The water was then defiled and unfit for further use.

The method of washing the hands at the present day as I found it in Syria and in Turkey is very suggestive of what there is every reason to believe was the custom in all Bible lands and Bible times. If you enter a house, the servant appears with a washbowl and pitcher. But you are never expected to pour water into the bowl and wash, as our habit is. The empty bowl is put in a place convenient for you to hold your hands over it. The attendant then pours the water on your hands, and you wash them with soap or without, and the dirty water falls into the bowl. It would shock every Oriental idea were you to dip your hands into the bowl unless you were without any possible means of doing otherwise. The water poured from the pitcher becomes "running water," and your hands are cleansed in that way.

And now we are prepared to understand that clause about washing "with the fist." Many times there is no servant in attendance to pour the water or to sprinkle it upon the Oriental traveler or upon this man who comes home after contact with something or with somebody unclean. He must himself, therefore, perform the whole ceremony. How does he do it? He lays hold upon the pitcher himself with one hand and pours the water upon the other and in turn takes the pitcher in the other hand and pours the water upon the first. So they are both cleansed in the "running water." I quote here the words of Mr. Hazard, to which I referred a little while ago:

"It was a feeling that the real explanation of this passage had not yet been reached that led me several years ago to take the passage to a noted Jewish rabbi for interpretation. He read it in the Greek, and then contemptuously said: 'It is evident that Mark did not know what he was talking about.' Catching my breath at such an easy disposing of the matter and of the author of the second Gospel, I approached the subject from a new direction. I asked the rabbi whether it is true that now the Pharisees do not eat, except as they first baptize their hands. He replied in the affirmative, and, on my request for more information, said: 'But we do not baptize them as you do in a quiet pool, but in running water, either in a natural stream or in the water flowing from a hydrant, or in water poured from some vessel by main strength from one hand upon the other.' The expression 'by main strength' immediately caught my attention, and I said to him: 'Rabbi, I thought that you said that Mark did not know what he was writing about. When he says "from the fist," doesn't he mean exactly what you have now said? Ordinarily it would have been impossible in Mark's day for any one to have baptized his hands at home in running water, except as he poured it out of some pitcher or basin "from the fist" upon the other hand.' The rabbi thought for a moment, and then, with a candor which much commended this modern Pharisee, said: 'I was wrong; that was what Mark did mean.' "

Mr. Hazard then goes on to say: "The rabbi had awakened my curiosity in saying that the Jews never baptize their hands except in running water, and I asked him for the reason of that. His reply was that 'still water represents death and corruption, and running water life and the quickening influences of God's Spirit.' 'In any of their ceremonial lavations,' I inquired, 'do the Jews lay any emphasis upon the amount of water in which they baptize?' None the tiniest stream of water would suffice for his most complete ceremonial lavation.' "

There is also another practice which the modern traveler has frequent occasion to observe, which may have prevailed in New Testament times, and to which reference may have been made in this passage. Sometimes there is no vessel which the man can lift even "by main strength," and in that case he takes up a "fist" full of water—say in his right hand—and pours it or sprinkles it upon the left. The left is thus cleansed. But, although the right hand has gone into the water, it is not yet cleansed; for it went only into the stagnant water. The left "fist" in like manner is used to cleanse the right hand by water set in motion; so thoroughly is the mind possessed of the idea that it must be water in motion in order to effect the cleansing. One who sees day after day this process constantly gone through with can easily believe that it might have been this which was referred to by Mark. `

This word pugme has always been a troublesome one to the translator and to the commentator. It is found only once in the New Testament, and Hence there is no opportunity for comparing different passages in which it is used. But it is thoroughly confirmatory of this interpretation to notice that this same word is used twice in the Septuagint, and in both cases it is unhesitatingly to be translated "with the fist," and nothing else.*

It is, therefore, almost certain to my mind that this is the only proper translation here and it renders a very obscure passage entirely intelligible.

It may also be added that it would be difficult, if not impossible, to find any authority in classic Greek for the translation given, either in the old or the new version. I have never seen quoted, in any Greek lexicon, a single passage in which the word is supposed to mean either oft or diligently. Liddell and Scott refer only to the passage in Mark, as one in regard to which they do not commit themselves; but only say that "it is interpreted by some to mean diligently, and by others oft." Professor Thayer, in his lexicon of the New Testament, seems decidedly to accept the translation which is here advocated, although he makes a different comment upon it.**

In this same passage is the reference to the baptism of "tables," and, according to some of the manuscripts, of "couches." I am aware that the most approved manuscripts do not contain either of these words. But the fact that these readings are among the oldest shows that they were accepted for centuries; and they never would have been introduced had there been any supposed impossibility in baptizing tables and couches. Their immersion was a manifest impossibility. Let any one visit the old city of Pompeii, buried up in A.D. 70, and see the uniform construction of their tables-occupying three sides of a hollow square, stationary, incapable of immersion-and all doubt on that subject will be at once removed. They were baptized, if at all, by sprinkling, beyond any reasonable question. Baptizo had long before that come to express the idea of ceremonial purification; such ceremonial purification was never once required to be by immersion; it was, in many instances, commanded to be by sprinkling, and hence it is the most natural conclusion possible that they never dreamed of baptizing tables and couches by dipping them.

In Luke 11:38 is another passage showing the use of the word baptizo among the Jews. A Pharisee had invited 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 baptized himself before eating." It is very hard to believe that Christ was expected to immerse himself before eating.

This is evidently the same sort of thing that is spoken of in the passage which we have just been considering. Christ had been mingling with the multitude. It was the need of ceremonial cleansing in the ordinary way which they had in mind. That was by sprinkling. There is no proof that their houses were constructed with accommodations for immersion of all their guests: the proof is on the other side.

In the account of the marriage at Cana of Galilee we have the thing so described as to make it visible. "There were set twelve firkins after the manner o f the Jews purifying." From this water the guests drew off and sprinkled themselves -or the servants poured it upon them. The water was so used that it was entirely fit for drinking purposes. Not even the hands of the guests were put into it; it was for something very different from immersion.

Next in chronological order comes the use of this word in describing John's baptism, and I begin by saying that even if it could be proved that immersion was sometimes practiced in New Testament times—nay, if it could be proved that it was always practiced—that would not settle the question that immersion was required. That is to be determined only by the meaning of the word.

"What does the law of Christ require?" is the only question that vitally concerns us. Christ and his apostles sat while they preached. We are commanded to preach, but we are not commanded to sit while we preach. Christ and his apostles always traveled either on foot or on horseback or in boats, when they went on their preaching tours. We are commanded to go into all the world with the gospel, but we are not commanded to go in the same way they went. Christ and his apostles celebrated the Lord's supper reclining at table. (This is the only meaning of the word used in the Greek, although our translators have rendered it by our word "sit.") We are commanded to eat and drink, but we are not commanded to do it reclining. They went about doing good, wearing sandals and loose flowing togas. We are required to go about doing good, but we are not confined to their manner of doing it.

As to the meaning of the words "baptize" and "baptism," we have found that they were sometimes (to say the least) used of ceremonial cleansing which was performed without immersion; that the writer to the Hebrews refers to the Old Dispensation as requiring of the worshiper "divers baptisms," while in the Old Testament IMMERSION IS NEVER ONCE REQUIRED.

This settles the question—that the law of baptism does not require immersion; and the particular manner, therefore, in which John and the apostles baptized is as immaterial to us as their manner of dressing, their methods of missionary travel, or their position at the Lord's table.

I say thus much because we ought always to make this discrimination between what the apostles did and what we are required to do. They had all things common, and it has sometimes been argued that their example is a law to us. This is a mistake. Their example is not at all binding upon us any farther than it can be shown that it was in accordance with the commands of the Master.

I do not speak of this because I think that, as a matter of fact, John the Baptist and the apostles baptized by immersion as a general thing. I do not think that they did. In some cases it is certain to my mind that they did not: in none is it certain that they did. But even if they did, it imposes no obligation on us.

With this preliminary statement we can come to the study of the history with a proper appreciation of the weight of the argument, whatever it may be. First in order comes the record of John's baptism.

It is argued that this was by immersion on two grounds : —

I. "The baptism is said to be in the river Jordan." This proves nothing, for (1) it was so distinctly impressed upon every Jew that ceremonial cleansing (which we have already shown was expressed by the word "baptism") must always be by running water (or, as it is in the Hebrew, "living water") that we can readily understand how much pains would be taken to reach it. (2) The preposition which is here translated "in" is very frequently rendered "at." You will hear it said that only epi means "at," and that en means "in." But this is so far from being an invariable rule that any one who will be at the trouble of looking the matter up will find that epi is found only forty-four times in the Greek where we have in our version the rendering "at," over against one hundred and two times in which "at" is the translation of en. (3) The expression "in the river Jordan" applies to the whole river bed, which is often—I may more truly say almost always—much wider than the stream. Travelers speak of pitching their tents "in the river Jordan," meaning within the outer banks, of course, not in the water.

II. "The account states that Jesus, after his baptism, went up out of the water; this implies his immersion." I reply: (1) "out of the water" is admitted by all competent critics not to be an exact translation. No Baptist scholar would be willing to risk his reputation upon such a rendering of the preposition apo. In the Revised Version it is translated "from" and never should have been translated otherwise. (2) Assuming that John used a bunch of hyssop and performed the baptism according to the old law—dipping it into the running water and sprinkling those who came to his baptism—everything told us of John’s baptism at the Jordan would apply. There is not one circumstance, nor one detail, that would need to be changed.

* If men strive together, and one smite another with a stone, or with his fist, and he die not, but keepeth his bed, etc. Ex. 21:18. Behold, ye fast for strife and debate, and to smite with the fist of wickedness. Is. 58:4.

** Pugme niptesthai tas cheiras, to wash the hands with the fist, that is, so that one hand is rubbed with the clenched fist of the other. Translating "with the fist;" each reader can decide for himself which of the two explanations is the more natural. With the Eastern custom in mind, as it is seen everywhere, it is easy for me to decide; for Professor Thayer’s comment is just as consistent with our fashion of washing as with theirs, and does not imply that the water is in motion at all, which with them is the main thing. I have often seen the ceremonial cleansing of very dirty hands without the slightest attempt at any rubbing. In truth, the hands were just as dirty after the "cleansing" as before. But they had sprinkled the water very vigorously.