Page 198 - Demo

baptised his convert in the name ofAllah; the Sabian in the194name of Allah and of John; but the Christian “Qushīsha” (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 peoplesin 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 appearsthat the Semitic Christians, in order to distinguish their sacramental baptism from that of the Sabaites, adopted the appellation of “ma ،mudītha” 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 ،mudītha” 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