those multitudes who came to John's
baptism needed "much water" for themselves and their beasts.

_Mrs. K._ But the Saviour went down into the water, and came up out of
the water.

_Mr. M._ So did John, in the same sense; and so did "both Philip and the
Eunuch;" but John and Philip did not, therefore, go under the water. But
Mr. Kelly will tell you that _down in_ to, and _up out_ of, might as
well have been translated to and from, in the case of the Eunuch. If you
insist that going down into the water involves immersion, it follows
that Philip went under the water with the Eunuch, and there baptized
him.

_Mr. K._ We shall set those matters right in that new version of the
Bible which you were complaining of the last time I saw you. Down into,
and up out of, are required by the word baptize, which means immerse.

_Mr. M._ No, my dear sir, not always, even in the New Testament. The
word had come, even in the Saviour's time, to signify purification, or
consecration, irrespective of the mode. The Pharisees, in coming from
the market-places, except they wash, eat not. The word is baptize. But
they did not bathe at such times; they "baptized" themselves by washing
their bodies. We read of the baptism of beds, which was merely washing
them. The Israelites were baptized unto Moses. There the word means,
simply, inaugurated, or set apart, with no reference to the mode; for,
they were not immersed, but bedewed, if wet at all; they were not buried
in that cloud, for the other cloud that led them was in sight; they were
not buried in the sea, which was a wall to them on either hand.

There is a good illustration, it seems to me, of the change in words
from their literal meaning, in the passage where Christ is called the
"first-born of every creature." He was not _born first_, before all men,
but he has the "preeminence" over all creatures, as the first-born had
among the children. Here is an illustration, from the New Testament, of
the way in which _baptism_ may cease to denote any mode, and refer only
to an act of consecration.

As to that new version of the Bible, Coleridge says, that the state
ought to be, to all religious denominations, like a good portrait, which
looks benignantly on all in the room. So the Bible now seems to look
kindly upon all Christian sects; and, for one, I love to have it so.
But, some of you, good brethren, who are in favor of this new version to
suit your particular views, are trying to alter t