Page 195 - New English Book L

194

baptised his convert in the name of Allah; the Sabian in the
name of Allah and of John; but the Christian “Qushisha”
(in Arabic “qassis” or presbyter) baptized in the name of
the Father, of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in which the
names of Allah and of Jesus (pbuh) are not directly recited.
The diversity and the antagonism of the three baptismal
systems is apparent. The Jew, as a true Unitarian, could
not tolerate the name of John to be associated with that of
the Elohim, whereas the Christian formula was extremely
repugnant to his religious taste. There is no doubt that
the Christian baptism, with its sacramental character and
polytheistic taint, was abhorred also by the Sabians. The
symbol of the covenant between Allah and His people
was not baptism but circumcision (Gen. Xvii.), an ancient
institution that was strictly observed, not only by the three
religions, but also by many pagan Arab tribes. These
diverse baptismal forms and rituals among the Semitic
peoples in the East were not an essential divine institution,
but only a symbol or sign, and therefore not strong and
efficacious enough to supplant one another. They all
used water for the material of their baptism, and, more
or less, in similar form or manner. Each religion adopted
a different name to distinguish its own practice from
that of the other two. The original Aramaic “Sab’utha” –
properly and truly translated into the Greek “baptismos”-
was faithfully preserved by the Saba’ïtes (Sabians). It
appears that the Semitic Christians, in order to distinguish
their sacramental baptism from that of the Sabaites,
adopted the appellation of “ma?muditha” which, from a
linguistic point of view, has nothing whatever to do with
baptism or even with washing or immersion. It is only an
ecclesiastical coinage. Why “ma?muditha” was adopted
to replace “Sab’utha” is a question altogether foreign to
our present subject; but en passant, I may add that this
word in the Pshittha is used also for a pool, a basin for