Chapter XXXIV: Section XXXII: Like these were the Washings of the People

The conclusion just indicated as to the washings of the priests, carries with it a like decision respecting all the self-performed washings.

1. The word _rāhatz_, to wash, is used in the same manner, in the directions given with respect to all the various cases, of hands, feet and person,—of priests and people, and of the sacrificial pieces, alike.

2. The self-washings imposed on the people were of the same essential nature and meaning as those of the priests. In both, the idea was that of holiness and purity of heart and life, maintained by personal watchfulness and efficiency through the grace of the Holy Spirit. If this idea was properly symbolized by the priestly ablutions without immersion, the conclusion is unavoidable, that among the people immersion was unknown. To them, the mode used by the priests would be the standard of propriety.

3. It is impossible to elicit any consistent meaning out of the supposed immersions. The ritual system was characterized by congruity in all its parts, and meaning everywhere. What else upon Baptist principles, can the immersions be thought to mean, if not the burial of Christ? But how, then, are we to understand the grades of washings, of the hands, and feet, and garments, as so carefully distinguished from each other, and from that of the person? What means the fact, which is so clearly marked, that these washings were self-performed? Did Christ entomb himself? How are we to explain the washing of Aaron by Moses? If immersion is typical of the burial of the Lord Jesus, what pertinence could it have to his birth and inauguration as priest? What mean the peculiar times at which the self-washings were to be performed,—the priests being required always to wash _before_ offering sacrifice or ministering at the altar; whilst, the unclean for seven days performed the same rite at the end of the seven days, _after_ they had been restored from typical death? Was Christ buried _before_ he had made of himself an offering and a sacrifice? Or, again, was it _after_ he had, by the Spirit, risen from the dead? On the immersion theory, the facts can not be reconciled.

Whilst all these considerations point decisively to one conclusion, there is not a fact nor a circumstance to occasion even a moment’s embarrassment in its acceptance. Assume the washings to have been immersions, and confusion and perplexity invest the subject. Recognize them in their true character as ablutions and not immersions, and all is clear and congruous. The customs of the people,—the circumstances in which the rites were performed,—the words used to describe them,—the ritual relations in which they occur,—the analogies of the whole system,—the examples of the priests, and every casual incident and allusion,—all find, in this view, a center around which they cluster and shine, in perfect harmony, clearness and congruity of meaning.

The conclusion is impregnable. Immersion, as a rite of cleansing or purifying, was utterly unknown to Israel. And, particularly, there is nothing whatever to be found, in all the records of the Levitical system to which the advocates of immersion can point and say,—“Here are the ordinances of which Paul speaks, wherein divers immersions were imposed on Israel, until the time of reformation.” It is therefore certain that _in the vocabulary of Paul_, BAPTIZO _did not mean, to immerse, and baptism is not so performed_.