ed as being exclufively ufed in the fame fenfe. But, Sir, is this inference grammatical and juft? or rather, is it not abfurd and ridiculous? Does it not entirely confound and annihilate the diftinction between the primitive and derivative-the genus and fpecies, and render the words bapto and baptizo, perfectly fynonimous, even in their conftant, or most common and proper fignification?

Permit me to enquire further. If baptize, when mentioned in fcripture, always fignify to dip, as has been pretended, is it not very ftrange and unaccountable, that this word fhould never have been once used in any of thofe aforefaid cafes, where the mode of dipping was certainly and indifputably meant? Befides, if the mode of dipping be abfolutely effential to the Chriftian Baptifm, as you pretend, is it not equally ftrange and unaccountable, that the primitive word bapto, fhould never have been once used with reference to this ordinance?

It would not be improper to fay, that the root includes the branches; that the genus includes all its different fpecies; and that the primitive word includes all the words derived from it. But it would be very incorrec, to infer that a certain branch included the root, and all the other branches-that a particular fpecies, included the genus, and all its other various fpecies; or that a derivative, included the primitive word, and all the other words derived from it.

Bapto is the primitive word, and we have fhown from cuftomary ufage in the facred fcriptures, that it most commonly fignifies to dip. Baptizo is its derivative, terminating in zò, and therefore, according to grammarians, is a deminutive, and frequently ufed to exprefs a mode of wetting, lefs than total immerfion or dipping.

This inference is fairly drawn from the etymology of the word, and it will appear still more evident, when we fhall attend to thofe feveral places in the New Teftament, where baptizo is used by the Apostles.

I am, Sir, &c.

IT

SIR,

LETTER XII.

T is well known, that the word Bible, now fignifies, and is, by common confent and ufage, reftricted in its fignification, to the Book of Infpiration. The word fcripture is allo now applicable folely to the writings of infpired men. But, as thefe words originally fignified, and were applied to any other book or writing whatfoever, fo the original words baptize and baptifm, which are now appropriated exclufively to a chriftian ordinance, formerly fignified, and were frequently ufed, even by the Apoftles, to express other wet

tings and wafhings of various kinds. Thiss appears, not from the English Teftament, but from the original Greek. For example. The washing of hands-the washing of household utenfils and furniture-and the various wafhings and purifications of the Jews, are fometimes expreffed in the Greek Teftament, by the words baptizo and baptifmos. The fe wafhings, in the original language, are ftyled baptifms; and undoubtedly the modes of applying and ufing water in baptizing, or washing thefe different articles, were as various formerly, as they are at the prefent day.

It is faid in the 7th chapter of Mark, " that "the Pharifees, when they faw fome of his "difciples eat bread with defiled (that is to "fay, with unwashen) hands, they found fault; "for the Pharifees and all the Jews, except

they wafh their hands oft, eat not; and "when they come from the market, except "they wash (in the original, except they are "baptized) they eat not." It is alfo faid in Luke, xi. 37, "that a certain Pharifee afked

"Jefus to dine with him. And he went in

"and fat down to meat. And when the Phari"fee faw it, he marveled that he had not first "washed before dinner." The fame word is made ufe of in the original, which has been noticed in the preceding paffage. "The

"Pharifee marveled that he had not been "baptized before dinner."

I am fenfible that you, and some other Baptift writers, pretend, "that the baptifm or

"washing here referred to, was performed by "bathing or by dipping the whole body into "water, and that this was the mode, in which "the Jews were baptized or washed, especially "when they came from the market, as they were then fuppofed to be more than ordi"narily defiled."

But, Sir, this pretence proves nothing, unlefs it be the great ftraits and difficulties, to which the Baptifts are reduced, in attempting to defend their principles. It is not inti-. mated that our Saviour or his difciples had been to, or that they came from the market; nor is it any where faid or intimated, in the old or new Teftament, that the Jews did practife bathing, or dipping their whole. bodies into water, before they dined, or eat bread. Befides, a practice of this kind would have been, in many inftances, very inconvenient, and even impracticable.

Dr. Pococke, that very learned divine, has hown clearly, from the writings of Maimonides and other Rabbies, that the Jews never had fuch a cuftom. But they used to wash their hands; and he exprefsly tells us, that the mode of wafhing, was by having water drawn or poured upon them. This account agrees with what is faid in 2 Kings iii. 11, Elisha poured water upon the hands of Elijah. It alfo agrees well with the original word,. which is not used in the active, but in the paffive voice; a circumftance, which feems. to indicate that the water was applied to their

hands by fome other perfon; or else that it was drawn out upon them, by means of fome contrivance, provided for that purpose.

This opinion is further corroborated by the form and conftru&tion of thofe water pots which were made for the purposes of their various purifications.-We are told, "there "were fet at a certain marriage in Cana of "Galilee, fix water pots, according to the "manner of the purifying of the Jews." Thefe water-pots being filled with water, which was afterward in a miraculous manner turned into wine by our Saviour, he orderedthem to draw it off, and bear it to the gov. ernour. He did not direct them to dip it out, but to draw it off. These large pots or pitchers were not intended as baths, to plunge or bathe the whole body in, but for the cuftomary wafhings and purifications of the Jews; and in particular, for the purpose

wafhing their hands; and perhaps occafionally their faces and their feet; and it feems thefe pots were provided with cocks, or with fome fuitable contrivance, in order to draw or pour off the water upon their hands, or into fome fmaller veffel for the common uses of purifying.

66

The learned compilers of the Dictionary of Bible, inform us," that the Hebrews had an infinite number of purifications. For "example, they did not fo much as eat, nor even fit down to a table, till after they had

66