themselves, yet it is plain, that he did not immerse their whole bodies in water, nor wash their whole bodies in any mode.

We must suppose, that Aaron, on the great day of atonement, was to give himself very different washings from that, which the priests were continually to give themselves; but we do not know that he was to wash all his flesh. If we should suppose, that he washed all his flesh, it would not certainly follow, that he did it by total immersion. He was commanded to "wash his flesh in water," before he put on the holy linen garments; and he was com manded, when he put off those garments, to "leave them" in the holy place, to "wash his flesh with water in the holy place, and put on his" usual "garments." The manner, in which he was to wash his flesh at either of the times on that day, was not specified. It does not appear likely, that he totally immersed his body.

Water mixed with the blood of a bird, was to be sprinkled seven times upon him, who was to be cleansed from the leprosy. In the same manner was a leprous house to be sprinkled that was to be cleansed.*

*See Lev. iv. 7. 51.

Water mixed with the ashes of a heifer, was to be sprinkled upon persons and things unclean by the dead.*

At the consecration of the Levites, water of purifying was to be sprinkled upon them.†

In various instances of legal defilement, persons were to wash their clothes, and bathe their flesh in water.

In no case the law expressly required persons or things to be totally immersed in water. No things were implicitly required to be totally immersed; unless a thing cannot be "rinsed in water,' go through the water," and be washed in every part, without being all under water at once. As for persons, in no case was one person required totally to immerse another; and no person was even implicitly required ever to give himself a total immersion, unless it was impossible for a person to wash all his flesh, without being all under water

at once.

It is plain, that our translators ought not to have rendered baptismois (in the epistle to the Hebrews) dippings; nor would it have been proper for them to render it washings by dipping. They did the best that could have been done, in rendering it washings. It is un

*See Numb. xix. 9-20. and Ex. xxxi. 19-23. † Numb. viii. 3. See Lev. vi. 28. and xv. 12. and Numb. xxxi. 23.

reasonable to consider baptismois, in this place, as meaning only such washings as were performed by total immersion. It is rational to consider the washings, as called divers, not only because they were to be performed on different occasions, but, also, because they were to be performed in different ways; and it is perhaps proper to consider them, as including even those washings, which were performed by sprinkling. Though baptizo and baptismos seem most applicable to washings, in which pure water is used, yet they seem applicable to washings, in which water is mixed with other ingredients.

The command of Christ to his disciples, to "Go," "and teach all nations, baptizing them in [into] the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost,"* cannot be judiciously considered, as a command to dip, or to wash by dipping, unless it can first be proved, that dipping is essential to baptism.

But, as appears from what has been said, it cannot be inferred from the signification of the word baptizo, that baptism necessarily implies the dipping of any part of the body.

Much less can the command of Christ be considered as a command wholly to immerse

* Matt. xxviii. 19.

the body, or to wash the body by a total im-

mersion.

It is very evident that the Baptists lay more stress upon the mode of baptism, than is warranted by the mere signification of the word baptizo. If it should be granted, that this verb always signifies either to dip or immerse, or to wash by dipping or immersion, it would not follow, that total immersion is essential to baptism; for even then, a person might be said to be baptized, if only a part of his body, if only his head, were put into water. Nor is there any command in the New Testament, to wash the whole body.

2. In the Scriptures, no instance of baptism is recorded, in which immersion plainly appears to have been the mode.

We read in our translation, that Jesus "was baptized of John in Jordan," and that he came "up out of the water."* In this passage when it is said, "in Jordan," the Greek word is eis. This preposition sometimes signifies at. One said to Jesus, "Let me first go, and bid them farewell," who “are [eis ton oikon mou] at my house." When it is said, that Jesus "was baptized of John in Jordan," the

* Mark i. 9, 10. † Luke ix. 61.

translation might have properly been, was baptized by John [eis ten Jordanen] at Jordan. The words in Mark i. 10. rendered "out of the water," ought to have been rendered, from the water. The Greek preposition is apo, which, in the New Testament, is rendered from, oftener, than all other ways. There followed Christ" great multitudes of people [apo tes Galilaias] from Galilee."*"If one went unto them [apo nekron] from the dead, they will repent." The same preposition is used in the account of our Saviour's baptism in Matt. iii. 16. The passage in Mark might have been well translated thus. Jesus came from Nazareth of Galilee, and was baptized by John at Jordan. And straight way coming up from the water, &c.

But, granting our translation to be most correct, that Jesus was baptized "in Jordan,” it does not necessarily follow, that he was baptized by immersion. Jesus said to a blind man, "Go, wash [eis] in the pool of Siloam."-"He went his way, therefore, and washed, and came seeing." Here eis, which might have been translated at, is rendered in. The blind man wash. ed in the pool. But was he immersed? It is

*Matt. iv. 25. † Luke xvi. 80. John ix. 7.