b'I \n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ni v \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nv/ \n\n\n\n\n\n\nV \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nlV \xe2\x80\xa2/> \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x96\xa0$\' \n\n\n\n$ ~% \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\\SS \n\n\n\n\n\n\n-A \n\n\n\n\n\n\nV\\ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n^N \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n% \n\n\n\n% \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\'oo\' \n\n\n\n\n\n\n"<- \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nv \xe2\x80\xa2= \n\n\n\nk ; \n\n\n\n\n\n\nvO S \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nv* \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nV \xe2\x80\xa2/> \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\\0 \n\n\n\n1 \n\nCLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nAN INQUIRY \n\n\n\nTHE MEANING OF THE WORD \n\n\n\nB A n T I Z XI, \n\n\n\nAS DETERMINED BY THE USAGE OF \n\n\n\nCLASSICAL GREEK WRITERS. \n\n\n\nJAMES W. DALE, \n\nPASTOR OP THE MEDIA PRESBYTERIAN CHURCH, DELAWARE COUNTY, PA. \n\n\n\nPHILADELPHIA : \nWM. RUTTER & CO. \n\nBOSTON : CHICAGO : \n\nDRAPER & HALLIDAY. S. C. GRIGGS & CO. \n\n1867. \n\n\n\nIt- \n\n\n\n\n\n\n" Either the words of a language must each denote only a single \nnotion \xe2\x80\x94 a single fasciculus of thought, \xe2\x80\x94 the multitude of notions not \ndesignated being allowed to perish ; or the words of a language must each \nbe employed to denote a plurality of concepts. Of these alternatives the \nlatter is the one which has been universally preferred ; and accordingly \nall languages by the same word express a multitude of thoughts, more or \nless differing from each other. \n\n" Now, what is the consequence of this ? It is plain that if a word has \nmore than a single meaning attached to it, when it is employed it cannot \nof itself directly and peremptorily suggest any definite thought ; all that \nit can do is vaguely and hypothetically to suggest a variety of different \nnotions ; and we are obliged, from a consideration of the context, of the \ntenor, of the general analogy of the discourse, to surmise with greater or \nless assurance, with greater or less precision, what particular bundle of \ncharacteristics it was intended to convey." \n\nSir William Hamilton. \n\n\n\nEntered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1867, by \n\nJAMES W. DALE, \n\nIn the Clerk\'s Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. \n\n\n\nSHERMAN & CO., \n\nSTEREOTYPERS AND PRINTERS, \n\nPHILADELPHIA. \n\n\n\nSYNOPSIS. \n\n\n\nBaptist Writers. \n\ntheir views presented and difficulties suggested. \n\nA. R., A. Barber, Booth, Carson, Conant, Cox, Confession \nof Faith, Curtis, Lagg, Fuller, Gale, Jewett, Morell, Ripley, \nStovel, Roger Williams, Wayland. \n\nGreek Writers. \n\nUsing PcLxto). \xe2\x80\x94 Achilles Tatius, iElian, iEsop, ^schylus, \nAntoninus, Aratus, Arrian, Aristophanes, Aristotle, Barker\'s \nClassical Recreations, Bentleii Epigr. Collect., Constantine r \nDionysius, Euripides, Eustathius, Epictetus, Eupolis, Herod- \notus, Ilelladius, Hippocrates, Homer, Iamblichus, Julius Pollux, \nLucian, Lycophron, Menander, Plato, Plutarch, Sophocles, \nStrabo, Suidas, Theocritus. \n\nLatin Writers. \n\nUsing Tingo. \xe2\x80\x94 Calpurnius, Celsus, Cicero, Horace, Juvenal, \nMartial, Ovid, Perseus, Pliny, Propertius, Seneca, Virgil. \n\nUsing Mergo. \xe2\x80\x94 Catullus, Curtius, Horace, Juvenal, Livy, \nLucan, Lucretius, Martial, Ovid, Perseus, Plautus, Pliny, \nQuintillian, Seneca, Statius, Yirgil, Yalerius Flaccus. \n\nEnglish Writers. \n\nUsing Dip and Immerse. \xe2\x80\x94 Booth, Bonheur, Chalmers, Sir A. \nClarke, Coleridge, Cowper, Current Literature, Dry den, Col. \nGardiner, Glover, Hanna, Judge Brackenridge, Kane, L\'Es- \n\n1 ( iii ) \n\n\n\nIV WRITERS NOTICED. \n\ntrange, Leyburn, Judge Kelley, Milton, Sir Thomas More, \nPope, Sir "Walter Scott, Spenser, Mrs. Sherwood, Shakspeare, \nEev. Dr. Thorn well, Warburton, Young. \n\nGreek Writers. \n\nUsing fiaxTi%<D. \xe2\x80\x94 Achilles Tatius,iEsop, Alcibiades, Alciphron, \nAlexander Aphrodisias, Archias, Aristotle, Arrian, Athenseus, \nChariton Aphrodisias, Conon, Demetrius, Demosthenes, Dio- \ndorus Siculus, Dion Cassius, Epictetus, Eubulus, Evenus, \nHeliodorus, Hippocrates, Heimerius, Homer, Julian. Egypt., \nLibanius, Lucian, Nicander, Orpheus, Pindar, Plato, Plotinus, \nPlutarch, Polysenus, Polybius, Porphyry, Proclus, Strabo, \nSuidas, Themistius. \n\n\n\nOther Writers. \n\nAddison, Bauer, Blair, Elizabeth Carter, De Wette, Ency- \nclop. Americana, Prof. Ewing, President Halley, Houghton, \nRev. J. H. Orbison, Eobinson, Prof. Stuart, Valla, Prof. \nWilson, Quintillian, Home Tooke, Sir William Hamilton, \nChaucer, Fabian, Mortimer. \n\n\n\nI. \n\nCOURSE OF INQUIRY. \n\n\n\nIntroductory. \n\n\n\nDiscussion has continued through centuries. Baptists claim \nto have reached demonstrated and absolute truth. Truth, \nunmixed with error, when presented, has power to compel \nconviction. If already discovered, no apology for rejecting \nor neglecting, and originating renewed inquiry. Obligation \nto examine and determine the value of Baptist results. \n\nBaptist Writers. \nTheir principles. Their translations. Their practice. \n\nBaptist Postulates. \n\n\xe2\x80\x94 * \n\n1. Ba-~{\'Cw, through all Greek literature, has but one mean- \ning; which meaning is definite, clear, precise, and easy of \ntranslation. \n\n2. Ba-ziZu) and fid-no have precisely the same meaning, \ndyeing excepted, and, in all other respects, whether as to \nform, or force, or effect, they differ nothing. \n\n3. Ba-riXu) expresses an act, a definite act; mode, and noth- \ning but mode, \xe2\x80\x94 to dip. Ed-rat, primary, expresses an act, a \ndefinite act ; mode, and nothing but mode, \xe2\x80\x94 to dip. \n\n4. BaatriZto has the same meaning in figurative as in literal \nuse, always referring to the act of dipping. \n\nCounter Propositions. \n\n1. Bd-rw, in primary use, expresses a definite act, character- \nized by various and essential limitations, \xe2\x80\x94 to dip. \n\n(v) \n\n\n\nVI COURSE OF INQUIRY. \n\n2. Bdnrw, dip, in secondary use. expresses a limited force, \nwith a correspondingly limited effect, \n\n3. Ba7TTt^a), in primary use, expresses condition, intusposi- \ntion, without limitations, \n\n4. BaxTiZa), in secondary use, expresses condition effected by \ncontrolling influence, without limitation of intusposition, or \notherwise. \n\nMeaning of the "Word. \n\nBaptist Yiews expressed by Koger Williams and u A. E., r \' \nA. Barber, Gale, Booth, Cox, Carson, Fuller, Dagg, \nStovel, Jewett. \n\nDip, Plunge, Immerse, used, at will, as convertible and equiva- \nlent terms. Is this true ? Can it be tolerated in assigning a \ndefinite, critical, and controversial meaning to a word? \n\nBooth says, .No. " The substitution of these words for one \nanother makes sentiment and practice ridiculous." Dagg \nsays, No. And sharply discriminates between dip and im- \nmerse in a long list of definitions; after which he turns his \npen and blots the distinction made. Fuller says, No. And by \nhis negation makes a way of escape from difficulty; but soon \ndenies his denial, in order to escape from equal difficulty on \nthe frther side. \n\n\n\nImmerse,, a Kefuge prom the Difficulties of Modal Action, \n\nModal action the sine qua non, heretofore, of the Baptist \ntheory. \n\nDr. Fuller, A. E., Baptist Confession of Faith. \n\nDoubt arising about "the definite act" theory. Parties \namong the Baptists. \n\n1. Some affirm the theory absolutely (Carson). 2. Some \ndoubt (G-ale). 3. Some deny (Fuller). 4. Some non liquet \n(Conant). \n\nCarson earnestly condemns Gale and Cox as abandoning \nthe point at issue. Morell, dissatisfied with Carson\'s defence, \nfrankly declares that he does give up the point. " Immersion \nmay be by pouring" (Cox, Morell, Fuller), \n\n\n\nCOURSE OF INQUIRY. Vll \n\n\n\nDr. Conant. \n\n\n\nHis labors great and valuable ; but do not meet the severe \ndemands of the Baptist system. Do not sustain modal mean- \ning, \xe2\x80\x94 to dip, to plunge. Introduce submersion, condition. \nAffirms act of passing from one element into another. Sea- \ncoast baptism. No such act of passing in it. Carson says \nthere is such act expressed. Gale and Fuller deny. The one \ncontradicts common sense; the others contradict Baptist prin- \nciples. \n\nDr. Conant\'s Definition: Act is made a vanishing quantity; \ncondition is brought into high relief. Secondary or analogous \nmeaning, \xe2\x80\x94 state of life. Cannot be founded on the form of \nan act. \n\nSecond Definition. \xe2\x80\x94 Seven denning words. Inconsistent \nwith Baptist principles. Bound to define by a term of abso- \nlute unity. Carson acknowledges the obligation; attempts to \nmeet it; and presents dip, and stumbles at the threshold \nagainst u or." Conant rejects dip almost as utterly, as Carson \nmaintains it exclusively. Makes it one of seven defining \nwords, yet excludes it from more than six-sevenths of the \ncases. Objections to the seven defining words, \xe2\x80\x94 to immerse, \nto im-merge, to sub-merge, to dip, to plunge, to whelm, to imbathe. \nForm of act abandoned. Words compounded with prepo- \nsitions should not, unnecessarily, translate uncompounded \nwords. Never means dip. Confounded with fid-raj. \n\nMetaphorical Use. \xe2\x80\x94 Not based on act, but condition. Wine- \ncup, perplexing questions, opiate drop, and such like, familiar \nagencies of baptism. If Dr. Conant will accept condition with- \nout " the image of the act," he will agree with us, and differ \nfrom Baptists. \n\nImmerse as a Latin Derivative. \n\nGrowing disposition to use immerse as a shield against the \ndifficulties of argument, while dip is held in reserve as a \nnecessity for practice. No confession of past error. \n\nDuplex Use. \xe2\x80\x94 1. The Latin preposition in expresses, some- \ntimes movement, sometimes position. In im-mergo it expresses \nposition and not movement. Under the plea of Latinism, \n\n\n\nVlll COURSE OF INQUIRY. \n\nmovement is, erroneously, introduced, and the translation, to \ndip, to plunge, grounded on it, and applied to cases of baptism \nin which the object is moved. \n\n2. Im-merse, in English, does not express movement; hence, \nin other cases of baptism, where no movement of the object \ntakes place, and dip or plunge will not answer to the facts, \nthis word can be slipped in. \n\nBury, and such like words, do not express movement. " Bury \ninto" does not give power of movement to bury. The duplicity \nof use which characterizes Baptist usage in employing im- \nmerse must be guarded against. \n\nFailure. \n\nBaptist writers fail to show : 1. One clear, precise, definite, \neasily translatable meaning. 2. That fid*\xe2\x84\xa2 and fta-~iZu> have \nthe same meaning, form, and force. 8. That fta.K~i^w expresses \nact, definite act, mode and nothing but mode \xe2\x80\x94 to dip.\' 4. That \npanT^o), in secondary use, pictures the act of dipping. 5. That \nany English word daguerreotypes the Greek word. \n\nAdministration of the Eite. \n\nHow is the rite of baptism to be administered ? Baptist \nConfession of Faith says : " Dipping or plunging the whole \nbody." "Immersing the subject in water" (Booth). Candi- \ndate placed under the water (Bipley). "Immersing of the \nbody in water" (Wayland). " Immersion or burial of the \nbody in water" (Curtis). " Immersion of the subject in water \nis essential;" "commanded to perform the act represented by \nthe word baptize" (Jewett). "Not sprinkling or pouring; \nthe motion takes place in the man, and ceases when the man \nin baptized in water", (Stovel). \n\nThe Act. \n\n" Commanded to perform the act" What act ? " The act \nof immersing the subject." What is the act of immersing? \n" The act which we are commanded to perform by the word \nbaptize." Very clear and very precise ! " The act is to move \n\n\n\nCOURSE OF INQUIRY. IX \n\na man until he is baptized." And "to move" expresses an \nact so clear, so precise, and so definite as to need no elucida- \ntion ! The Confession of Faith uses no enigmatical terms j with \nfrankness and perfect explicitness it declares, \xe2\x80\x94 "the act is \ndipping or plunging." With such statement, nothing is left \nbut to inquire, Does God command us to perform one or the \nother of those well-defined acts, \xe2\x80\x94 to dip, to plunge ? If so, \nwhich? They differ essentially; dipping is not plunging, \nplunging is not dipping. \n\nThe Object. \n\nWhat is the object of the act ? " The man " (Stovel). " The \nsubject" (Booth, Jewett). "The body" (Wayland, Curtis). \n" The whole body" (Conf. of Faith). Xo discord in the ut- \nterance of this element of Baptist sentiment. Practice, how- \never, antagonizes sentiment. " Baptism does not take place \nuntil after the greater part of the body has been put under \nwater by the act of walking" (Ripley). This is practice. \nWhat, now, becomes of the sentiment which announces "the \nact of dipping," as specifically the divine command, and "the \nwhole body" as the object of that act? \n\nThe End. \n\nWhat is the end of the act? "The act ceases when the \nman is baptized in the water" (Stovel). "In plunging the \nwhole body under water" (Conf. of Faith). " Emersion is not \nin the word, simply puts into or under the water" (Conant). \n\nEemarkable confessions. 1. Abandons the definition, to dip. \n2. Puts a living man under water, with, confessedly, no pro- \nvision to take him out. Beyond all credibility that any such \nact should have been commanded. To substitute /Sr/rrw for \nj3a-Tgaj, overtly, none dare to do ; to retain, verbally, ^a-r^w, \nand give to it the meaning of jld-rco, is to do covertly what \nnone venture to do overtly. \n\nValidity. \n\nWhat are the requisites to valid baptism ? 1. Immersion \nof the subject. 2. Immersion of the subject in water. 3. Im- \n\n\n\nX COURSE OF INQUIRY. \n\nmersion of the subject in water by the act commanded in \nbaptize. \n\n1. "Immersion." In immersion there is no limitation of \ntime. Is this a divine injunction? 2. "The subject." As \nthe subject is never immersed by Baptists in their ritual ser- \nvice, but the head and shoulders, only, they hereby destroy \ntheir own baptism. 3. " The act commanded." The act, \nuniversally, performed in practice is dipping ; but men high \nin Baptist authority now admit that the word does not always \nmean to dip. How do they know that it means to dip here ? \nBesides, to dip is, now, rarely found in any Baptist transla- \ntion of the word ; its appearance is becoming more and more \nrare ; how do they know that fiaTzzi^u) ever means to dip ? \n\nThe foundations of Baptist baptism, in its validity, are \nshaken by its friends. \n\n\n\nEesults. \n\nWe gather from Baptist records : \n\n1. As to the Word. The disagreement between one writer \nand another, and the disagreement of every writer with him- \nself, shows either an imperfect understanding of the word, or \na failure to find any word in the English language to expound \ntheir conception. \n\n2. As to Ritual Administration. Sentiment and practice are \nin irreconcilable contradiction. \n\n3. As to Validity of the Rite. Honesty in stating the elements \nwhich are essential to valid baptism is unquestionable, inas- \nmuch as they destroy their own, no less than that of all others. \n\n4. As to the Propriety of Renewed Investigation. "Want of ac- \ncord with principles, and want of agreement between writers, \nshow some radical error, and require a new investigation. \n\n\n\nRENEWED INVESTIGATION. XI \n\nII. \n\nRENEWED INVESTIGATION. \n\n\n\nZ?^/777Z\xc2\xa3\xe2\x80\x94 What is its Meaning. \n\nAdvantage of a simultaneous and comparative examination \nof the usage of @&izrm and pami\xc2\xa3u> \xe2\x80\x94 tingo and mergo \xe2\x80\x94 dip and \n\nIMMERSE. \n\nYerbs demanding Condition for their Object, \nbury. drown. whelm. \n\nBury demands covered condition for its object, without \nlimitation in the form of the act by which such condition may \nbe effected. \n\nBrown demands: 1. Covered condition. 2. Condition re- \nsulting from such covered condition \xe2\x80\x94 suffocation. 3. Condi- \ntion resulting from controlling influence without any covering. \n\nWhelm demands : 1. Covered condition. 2. Irresistible in- \nfluence without covering. \n\nForm of act is demanded by none of these words. \n\nj \n\nPLUNGE. \n\nPlunge demands the execution of an act of definite charac- \nteristics. This word belongs to a class widely separated, in \nnature, from the preceding. \n\nBd-ro) belongs to the same class with plunge; pa-zi^a) to that \nclass represented by bury, drown, and whelm. \n\nFarther Explanation. \n\n1. Form of act does not belong to fio-riZuj. 2. Intusposition, \nwithin a closely investing medium, essential to the primary \nuse. 3. Indefinite continuance in such condition equally essen- \ntial to the word. 4. Feeble influence, the result of superficial \nentrance and momentary continuance, excluded. Carson in- \nsists, unqualifiedly, on a definite act. Gale doubts. Conant \nleans to Gale. President Hallcy, of England, and Professor \n\n\n\nXll RENEWED INVESTIGATION. \n\n"Wilson, of Ireland, adopt state, condition, in opposition to act. \nForm of act, whether in primary or metaphorical use, must be \nabandoned. \n\nIntusposition. Condition of intusposition carries with it the \nidea of completeness. 1. Complete investiture, simply, as of \na rock. 2. Complete influence resulting from such investiture, \nas in a ship sunk. 3. Complete influence induced by other \ncauses than an investing element. Exigencies of language \nrequire such modification. 4. Frequent and perpetuated use \nexpressive of a definite influence begets a specific meaning; \nas in the case of water, to drown, and in the case of wine, to \nmake drunk. \n\nAs paxriXui has for its starting-point a condition of intuspo- \nsition, complete as to extent and indefinite as to duration; \nwhile pdxTcu sets out from a trivial act of superficial entrance \nand of evanescent continuance in an element; these words \nmay be well expected to have a development broadly di- \nvergent. \n\nEepresentative Word. \n\nBaptists have failed to present a representative word. Now, \nthey offer one, now another, and now a third, each differing in \nform and in force. \n\nNo English word, in its radical thought and development, \nsquarely correspondent with the Greek word. \n\nTo drown, to whelm, to merse, to steep, to inn, each may \npresent some specialty of claim. The Greek word having but \none form throughout its usage, it is desirable that there should \nbe, if possible, but one English word used in its translation. In \na controverted issue, it is especially desirable to avoid the shift- \ning from one word to another, even at the expense of using, \nsometimes, unfamiliar forms of phraseology. We choose, from \namong other imperfect terms, Merse. \n\nDefinition. \n\n1. To intuspose, to merse; specifically, to drown. \n\n2. To influence controllingly ; specifically, to make drunk. \n\nThe facts of usage must sustain this definition, or it is er- \nroneous. Every known case of classical usage adduced. The \nperiod covered by the quotations is about a thousand years. \n\n\n\nRENEWED INVESTIGATION. Xlll \n\nBAHTn\xe2\x80\x94 ITS MEANING. \nTo Dip. \n\nTo dip expresses a gentle, do.wnward movement, entering \nslightly into some diverse element, with immediate return. \n\nDip and plunge are evidently separated in nature. Plunge \nexpresses movement characterized by rapidity and force, en- \ntering into some element without return. To dip passes on \nfrom its special, primary use, to express to wet, to moisten, to \nwash, without involving the form of the act. \n\niElian, Aristophanes, Aristotle, Constantine, Dionysius Hal- \nicarnassus, Euripides, Iamblichus, Lycophron, Theocritus, \nAratus, Herodotus, Plutarch, Suidas. \n\nTo Dye. \n\nGale says, this word is used in the art of dyeing, but always \nimplying the act to dip. Carson denies that the act is pre- \nserved in dyeing; and all Baptists, now, adopt his doctrine, \nand admit that dipping (retaining one word throughout the \nmodifications of meaning, as does the Greek) may be by \nsprinkling. \n\nTo dye, in the progress of usage, becomes to stain, to smear, \nto gild, to temper, to imbue, or tincture. \n\nAchilles Tatius, iEsop, Aristophanes, Eustathius, Hippoc- \nrates, Iamblichus, Julius Pollux, Menander, Plato, Antoninus, \n^Eschylus, Aristotle, Epictetus, Eupolis, Helladius, Homer, \nSophocles, Strabo. \n\nBd-zm : 1. Dips, putting momentarily into a fluid. \n\n" 2. Dips, by dipping into a coloring fluid, \xe2\x80\x94 dyes. \n\n" 3. Dips, without dipping, by means of coloring mat- \nter, \xe2\x80\x94 stains. \n\n" 4. Dips, without dipping, without dyeing, without \nstaining, by communicating uncolored quality, \n\xe2\x80\x94 tinctures. \n\nBdT-w, dips, without the modal act of dipping. \n" dyes, without imparting the quality of color. \n\n\n\nXIV RENEWED INVESTIGATION. \n\nBd-ro), to dip, takes as its syntax efc, with the accusative; \nfid-Ta>, to dye, takes as its syntax the coloring matter in the \ndative, usually, without a preposition. \n\nTINGO\xe2\x80\x94 TO DIP. \n\nThe meaning of this word is uncontroverted. It is in re- \nmarkable harmony with ftdxru) in all its phases. \nIt means, to dip, to wet, to moisten, to wash, to anoint. \nCelsus, Juvenal, Ovid, Perseus, Propertius, Yirgil. \n\nTINGO\xe2\x80\x94 TO DYE. \n\nIt means, to dye, to stain, to paint, to temper, to imbue, or tinc- \nture. \n\nCicero, Horace, Juvenal, Martial, Ovid, Perseus, Pliny, \nYirgil, Seneca. \n\nTingo: 1. Dips, putting momentarily into a fluid. \n" 2. Dips, by putting into a coloring fluid, \xe2\x80\x94 dyes. \n" 3. Dips, without dipping, by means of coloring mat- \nter, \xe2\x80\x94 stains. \n4. Dips, without dipping, without dyeing, without \nstaining, by communicating uncolored quality, \n\xe2\x80\x94 tinctures. \n\n\n\nDIP., \n\nThe English dip corresponds, in all radical features, with \nfidnzm and tingo. It means to put in superficially and mo- \nmentarily, to dip, to wet, to bathe slightly, to examine superficially, \nto engage in limitedly, to mortgage, to take out a small quantity. \n\nBooth, Chalmers, Dryden, Sir A. Clarke, Clover, Milton, \nSir Thomas Moore, Pope, Sir Walter Scott, Shakspeare. \n\n\n\nDIP = DYE. \n\nIt means to dye, to stain, to imbue or tincture. \nColeridge, Cowper, Milton, Pope, Scott, Spenser, Warburton, \nYoung. \n\n\n\nRENEWED INVESTIGATION. XV \n\nConclusion. \xe2\x80\x94 Bd-rio, tingo, dip, each represents a form of \nact characterized by limitations as to \xe2\x80\x94 1. Force. 2. Extent \nof penetration into an element. 3. Duration of continuance \nin it. 4. Magnitude of its objects. 5. Degree of influence. \n\nIn using one word to translate pa-riZu) : it should be borne \nin mind, that the Greeks and Latins used but one word to \nexpress the modal act of dipping, and the quality of color by \ndyeing, as well as all the subordinate modifications of each of \nthese terms. Were we to translate in these cases, throughout, \nby the one word expressive of the primary meaning, we should \nhave to use such phrases as \xe2\x80\x94 Dip the pastures with dew; Dip \nthe face with tears; Dip the grass by sprinkling blood upon it. \n\nSuch breadth of usage, and such widely divergent, not to \nsay contradictory, meaning in the use of these terms, affords \nbut a poor basis whereon to ground the anticipation of finding \nin i3a-ziX(o " a, definite act, mode and nothing but mode, one \nmeaning through all Greek literature." \n\nBut the facts of usage, only, have authority; let us hear \nthem. \n\nFirst, let us inquire into the testimony of the corresponding \nEnglish and Latin words, Immerse and Mergo. \n\n\n\nXVI RENEWED INVESTIGATION. \n\n\n\nIII. \n\n\n\nIMMEKSE. \n\nImmerse and dip are confounded together by Baptist \nwriters, and interchanged at will. There is no authority for \nso doing. \n\nMeaning: To cause to be in a state of intusposition without \nlimitation of depth, or time, or force, or object, or mode of accom- \nplishment. \n\nIn all of these particulars it is in irreconcilable contrast \nwith dip. Dip performs an act upon its object transitory and \nlimited in all directions. It does not put its object in a new \nstate or condition. \n\nImmerse makes no demand for the performance of any defi- \nnite act. It does demand state, condition, intuspositiom This \nstate is of indefinite continuance ; it may be changed by the \nintervention of foreign influence, but it is never changed by \nimmerse.- In mersion, brevity of continuance is an accident, \nnot belonging to the state ; in dipping, brevity of continuance \nis of the essence of the act, and is always present. The acci- \ndental feature of brevity, cannot convert a state of mersion \ninto an act of dipping. The compounding preposition "in" \ndenotes position only, and not movement. Immerse is used to \nexpress thorough influence of any kind. \n\nBooth, Chalmers, Cowper, Current Literature, Dr. Kane, \nPope, Sir Walter Scott, Young. \n\nBdnratj tingo, dip, touch at all points; immerse is separated \nfrom each at all points. \n\nMEKGO. \n\n1. Mergo expresses no form of act. 2. It is alike indifferent \nto the movement of the object or the element. 3. Its object \nmay be a grain of sand or a world. 4. The time of its mer- \nsion is without limit. 5. The force it may call into action has \nno bound. 6. It demands intusposition for its object, and with \nthis is satisfied-. \n\nSecondary Use. \xe2\x80\x94 1. It expresses a condition resultant from \n\n\n\nRENEWED INVESTIGATION. XV11 \n\nsome controlling influence. 2. Absolutely, it expresses (gener- \nally) destructive influence. 3. Specifically, it means to drown, \nto make drunk. \n\nCatullus, Curtius, Horace, Juvenal, Livy, Lucan, Lucretius, \nMartial, Ovid, Pliny, Statius, Quintillian, Valerius Flaccus, \nVirgil. \n\nMergo and immerse, with some specialties of use, are in per- \nfect harmony. Mergo is in broad contrast, throughout all its \nusage, with /3<*7rro>, tingo, and dip. \n\n\n\nBAnTIZQ. \n\nWhat is its Usage? \nUse is of supreme authority, and the rule in the language. \n\n1. \n\nBaxri^u) expresses intusposition without influence. \n\nAristotle, Archias, Julian the Egyptian, Lucian, Orpheus, \nPlutarch, Polybius, Porphyry, Strabo. \n\n1. Ba-Ti\'ai is without limitation as to power, object, dura- \ntion, and form of action. \n\n2. Expressing no form of act, it accepts of all forms of act \ncompetent to effect its demand. \n\n3. The confusion of pdxziD and ^aizri^a) is a grave error and \nwithout excuse. \n\n4. The corner-stone of the Baptist system \xe2\x80\x94 " Baptizing is \nDipping, and Dipping is Baptizing" \xe2\x80\x94 is pure error. \n\n5. While some objects are uninfluenced by intusposition \nwithin a fluid, most objects will be thoroughly influenced by \nbeing placed in such a condition. \n\n2. \nIt expresses intusposition with influence. \n\n1. Vessels sunk by storm. 2. Vessels and persons sunk by \nweight. 3. Animals, &c, mersed by the flowing or uprising \nof water and of blood. 4. "Drowned" or "drunk" by mer- \nsion continued four days. 5. Mersion of the soul. \n\nAchilles Tatius, iEsop, Alexander Aphrodisias, Diodorus \n\n\n\nXV111 RENEWED INVESTIGATION. \n\nSiculus, Dion Cassius, Epictetus, Eubulus, Heliodorus, Hippoc- \nrates, Homer, Plotinus, Plutarch, Polybius, Strabo, Suidas. \n\n3. \n\nIntusposition for influence. \n\n1. To drown. 2. To saturate. 3. To incrust. 4. To de- \nstroy vessels. \n\niEsop, Achilles Tatius, Alcibiades, Dion Cassius, Heliodorus, \nHeimerius, Hippocrates, Lucian, Nicander, Polyaenus, Plu- \ntarch, Polybius, Strabo, Themistius. \n\n4. \n\nInfluence with rhetorical figure. \n\n1. Overflowing wave. 2. Tempest. \n\nChariton Aphrodisias, Dion Cassius, Libanius, Pindar. \n\n5. \n\nFigurative language. \n\nFigure becomes worn out by constant use. Any word \nwhich, originally metaphorical in its use, has secured for \nitself a well-defined meaning, diverse from literal use, lays \naside the character of figure and takes its place among literal \nwe;*ds. \n\nBaTiriZo), through daily and long-continued use, has secured \na secondary use, conveying an idea derived, but dissociated, \nfrom the primary use, which gives it a status of its own with- \nout recurring to the source whence it sprang. \n\nCarson, Blair, Quintillian. \n\nSECOKDAKY USE. \nControlling Influence \xe2\x80\x94 General. \n\n1. \n\nWithout Intusposition. \n\nAchilles Tatius, iEsop, Alciphron, Alexander Aphrodisias, \nDemosthenes, Demetrius, Diodorus Siculus, Heliodorus, Heim- \nerius, Libanius, Plotinus, Plutarch, Proclus, Themistius. \n\n\n\nRENEWED INVESTIGATION. XIX \n\n\n\nThe changes now shown to have taken place in fiazrt"t \nviz., 1. Intusposition without influence; 2. Intusposition with \ninfluence; 3. Intusposition for influence; and 4. Influence with- \nout intusposition \xe2\x80\x94 find a complete parallel and vindication in \nthose changes which have been shown to take place in the \nusage of fid::\xe2\x84\xa2, viz., 1. Dipping without dyeing; 2. Dipping \nfor dyeing; 3. Dyeing without dipping. \n\nBdr-io \xe2\x80\x94 1. Dips without dyeing. 2. Dips for dyeing. 3. \nByes without dipping. \n\nDa-ziXco \xe2\x80\x94 1. Merses without influence. 2. Merses for in- \nfluence. 3. Influences without mersing. \n\nSo, Steep \xe2\x80\x94 1. Intusposes. 2. Intusposes for influence. 3. \nInfluences without intusposing. \n\nBa\xe2\x80\x94c^io, used absolutely, or with appropriate case, in un- \nphysical relations, exj^resses, directly and not figuratively, con- \ntrolling influence. The modality of position, out of which this \nidea grows, has disappeared. \n\n\n\nControlling Influence \xe2\x80\x94 Specific. \nWithout Intusposition. \n\nSome things exert over certain objects a definite and. in- \nvarvino; influence. Water exerts over all human beings, \nmersed in it, the specific influence of suffocation \xe2\x80\x94 drowning. \n\n"Wine freely drunk, makes drunk. An opiate swallowed, stu- \npefies. When tSa\xe2\x80\x94^io is used to express the condition result- \ning from these influences (as it very frequently is), it no longer \nexpresses controlling influence generally; but expresses, from \nthe necessity of the ease, that specific influence which be- \nlongs to water \xe2\x80\x94 to drown; or to wine \xe2\x80\x94 to make drunk; or to \nan opiate \xe2\x80\x94 to stupefy. \n\nWhatever breadth of meaning any word may be possessed \nof, if it be persistently used to denote a condition, such as \nresults from wine drinking and kindred influences, deeply \nmarked and of unvarying uniformity, it cannot but be, that \nthe idea of such condition becomes incorporated in the word. \nTt> drink has a very broad application; but persistently used \nto express the drinking of intoxicating liquors, "a drinking \n\n2 \n\n\n\nXX RENEWED INVESTIGATION. \n\nman" comes to express a drunken man. The Greek word has \ngreat breadth of application; but used familiarly, and long, \nto express the condition induced by wine-influence, it comes \nto express directly the state of drunkenness. \n\nSome of the specific conditions expressed by this word, and \nwhich render its translation by an appropriate term justifi- \nable, if not compulsory, are as follows : \n\n1. To bring into a condition of stupdr \xe2\x80\x94 to stupefy ; by swal- \nlowing an opiate. \n\n2. To bring into a state of drunkenness \xe2\x80\x94 to make drunk; by \ndrinking wine. \n\n3. To bring into a state of coldness\xe2\x80\x94 to make cold; by pour- \ning water on hot iron. \n\n4. To bring into a state of bewilderment \xe2\x80\x94 to bewilder; by \nasking sophistical questions. \n\n5. To bring into an unintoxicating state \xe2\x80\x94 to temper wine; by \npouring water through it. \n\n6. To bring into a state of pureness \xe2\x80\x94 to purify; by using \nsea- water in any way. \n\nAchilles Tatius, Athenaeus, Conon, Evenus, Homer. Alleg., \nLucian, Plato, Plutarch. \n\nFrom such usage, figure (dipping!) has irrecoverably dis- \nappeared. \n\nParabaptists. \na class of persons of defective character. \n\nImplied contrast with persons who are Baptists \xe2\x80\x94 persons \nof decided character, who are under some controlling in- \nfluence. \n\nArrian. \n\nGeneral Eesdlts. \n\n1. Certain old and long-cherished errors have been corrected \nand abandoned. \n\n2. Other errors yet remain to be corrected. \n\n3. Usage has spoken freely, and been, I trust, reported \ntruly. \n\n\n\nRENEWED INVESTIGATION. XXI \n\nUsage declares : \n\n1. Bd-rw. tingo, and dip to be equivalent terms in their orig- \ninal import, and, also, that they run parallel, in a remarkable \ndegree, in all the variations of their development. \n\n2. Usage bears the same testimony to the common nature \nand kindred development of ^a-rc\'^w, mergo, and mers\'e. \n\n3. As the former class of terms agrees, essentially, in all its \nmembers, so it is in essential disagreement with all the mem- \nbers of the latter class. \n\nBd~T(0. \n\n1. Puts its object into a simple fluid element, and withdraws \nit promptly. \n\n2. Changes the state or quality of its object, as to color, \nby putting into coloring liquid. \n\n3. Changes the state or quality of its object, as to color, by \npressure, sprinkling, or otherwise. \n\n4. Changes the state or quality of its object where color is \nnot involved. \n\nBaTzri^ui. \n\n1. Intusposes its object within a fluid element without provid- \ning for its removal \n\n2. Influences, controllingly, its object by intuspositior. I \n\n3. Influences, controllingly, its object without intusposition. \n\n4. It drowns. It makes drunk. \n\nBa.Tzzi*ui expresses any complete change of condition by what- \nsoever agency effected, or in whatsoever way applied. \n\n\n\nTEST OF TRUTH. \n\nA master key proves its character by throwing back the \nbolts of every lock to which it is applied. \n\nThe meaning assigned to ^ar.zi^oi gives proof that it is such \na master key. Applied to every passage of classical Greek in \nwhich the word is used, a clear and adequate solution is at \nonce revealed. \n\n\n\nXX11 RENEWED INVESTIGATION, \n\nTry the opposing meaning \xe2\x80\x94 a definite act \xe2\x80\x94 and fashion a \nkey after that principle (of what model yon will), dip, plunge, \nsink, overflow, or what not, and each must, in turn, be thrown \naside in utter disappointment. The usage of $a-ri%(i} cannot \nbe "mastered" by any effort in that direction. \n\nAbandon all such endeavor, and apply the meaning \xe2\x80\x94 Con- \ndition : \n\n(1.) Condition of complete intusposition ;. \n\n(2.) Condition of complete influence ;\' \n\nAnd we have a key which opens every passage, "as on \ngolden hinges turning." \n\nThe meaning assigned throws light upon the origin of the \nconflicting views so long maintained, and their relations to the \ntruth. \n\n1. On the one side we have dip. The origin of this meaning \nis traceable, most unmistakably, to fidizTio. It is an intruder \nwithin the domain of fianri^io, and, as such, should be uncere- \nmoniously dismissed. \n\n2. Plunge, sink, overflow, are traceable to pam\'to as among \nthe accidents of form through which it secures its essential \ndemand of condition; while the attributing of such accidents \nto the essence of the word, involves the absurdity of making \nthe same word express many definite acts diverse and contra- \ndictory in form. \n\n3. On the other side we have pour and sprinkle. These \nforms of action are not the most natural servitors of flairrtZto. \nAnd yet their competency to fulfil this duty, under favorable \ncircumstances, is admitted by some of the ablest Baptist \nwriters. But it is in baptisms of influence where these words \nhave their just and appropriate use. \n\nTo say that baptism may be by such acts, is to declare a \ntruth; but to make $a-ri%ui mean to pour or to sprinkle, is an \nerror similar to that inta which those of the other side have \nfallen. \n\nThe explanation of the protracted conflict would seem to \nbe a repetition of the history of the struggle beneath "the \nshield with its golden and silver side." \n\nAll the truth has not been in view. \n\n\n\nCLASSIC BAPTISM, \n\n\n\nWITH A VIEW TO ITS BEARING ON \n\n\n\nCHRISTIAN BAPTISM, \n\n\n\nPART I. \n\n\n\nThree centuries have witnessed the continued discussion \nof the meaning of the word \xc2\xa3a-r:\'\xc2\xa3w, and the proper man- \nner of administering the rite of Christian Baptism. \n\nOne hundredth part of this time would seem to have \nbeen sufficient to gather together all the materials in- \nvolved in such discussion, and to have issued a judgment, \nbased upon them, from which there could have been no \nhopeful appeal. And if this has not been done most \nexhaustively, the fact is marvellous; but if it has been \ndone, it is no less marvellous that the judgment reached \nhas not compelled universal acceptance. \n\nThe mind is not at liberty to accept or to reject the truth \nwhen presented distinctly before it, with its evidences; it \nmust accept it. \n\nIn examining this subject, with exclusive reference to \npersonal instruction, it has appeared to me that the in- \nvestigation has not been, adequately, carried out in certain \ndirections. This has arisen, doubtless, from the little \npromise which seemed to be held out of valuable results \nfrom such inquiry. Sometimes, however, our anticipa- \ntions receive favorable disappointment. It may be so in \n\n(21) \n\n\n\n22 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthis case. And I submit the results gathered up, not only \nalong the main route of inquiry, but in some of its less \nfully explored collateral branches, in the hope of assisting \nto a final and generally acceptable judgment. If I shall \nfail to make the best use of the materials furnished, more \nskilful hands may take them and find their labors crowned \nwith greater success. \n\nThere is a large and respectable class of persons who \nwill consider this whole inquiry a work of supererogation. \nThey say that the work has been clone, well done; all the \ntruth has been evolved, and that now " it is not so much \nlight that is needed as honesty." \n\nSo fully convinced are we of the "honesty" of these \npersons, that we accept it, at once, with or without their \naffirmation; and because we do, gladly place ourselves \nwithin the clear shining of their "light," hoping that no \n"lack of honesty" will either cloud our perception or \nsilence our confession. Wisdom and duty alike demand \nthat we should pursue this course. If absolute truth has \nbeen already reached through the labors of others, it will \nbe less laborious to pass over a path already trodden, and \nto examine results already wrought out; and if these re- \nsult are luminous with uncolored truth, as they are said \nto be, then it is a privilege and a duty cordially to accept \nthem. \n\nThis course I propose to adopt. If the course of inves- \ntigation and results reached, by our Baptist brethren, are \nbeyond impeachment, after due examination, then our \ntask will be ended; but if otherwise, then even they will \nconfess that " light " may be sought at some other source \nwithout necessarily abandoning " religious honesty." \n\nBAPTIST POSTULATES. \n\nBaptist writers demand the acceptance as verities, by all \nlovers of truth, of certain general results reached by them \nin their investigations. \n\nAmong these are the following : \n\n\n\nSIR WILLIAM HAMILTON. 23 \n\nI. Bax-iZu), throughout the entire course of Greek literature, \nhas but one meaning, which is definite, clear, precise, and easy \nof translation. \n\nThis proposition is not self-luminous with truth. The \ndemand for its acceptance, therefore, cannot reasonably be \nexpected to follow on its mere enunciation. Apology for \nthis hesitancy may be found in the fact, that if this propo- \nsition embodies a truth, it is a very unusual one. Few \nthings are more rare in the history of language than to \nfind a word used by a cultivated people for ages in the \nsame absolute sense. In farther vindication of this hesi- \ntancy, allow me to present the following quotation from \nSir William Hamilton : \n\n"And here it is expedient to take into account two \ncircumstances, which mutually affect each other. The \nfirst is that the vocabulary of every language is necessarily \nfinite, it is necessarily disproportioned to the multiplicity, \nnot to say infinity, of thought; and the second, that the \ncomplement of words in any given language has been \nalways filled up with terms significant of objects and rela- \ntions of the external world, before the want was experi- \nenced of w r ords to express the objects and relations of the \ninternal." \n\n" Either words of a language must each designate only \na single notion \xe2\x80\x94 a single fasciculus of thought \xe2\x80\x94 the multi- \ntude of notions not designated being allowed to perish; or \nthe words of a language must each be employed to denote \na plurality of concepts. ... Of these alternatives, the \nlatter is the one which has been universally preferred; \nand, accordingly, all languages by the same word express \na multitude of thoughts, more or less differing from each \nother." \xe2\x80\x94 Logic, p. 436. \n\nMy object, now, is not to disprove the above postulate, \nbut merely to look at it as the fruit of Baptist labors, and \nsee whether it carries on the face of it justification for the \nbold demand which it makes for acceptance. The impres- \nsion made is, that farther evidence, and a good deal of it, \nis needed to make good such a point. \n\n\n\n24 CLASSIC BAPTISM., \n\nII. Ba7CTiZa> and fid*\xe2\x84\xa2 have precisely the same meaning, dye- \ning excepted; in all other respects, whether as to form, or force, \nor effect, they differ neither more nor less. \n\nThis proposition constitutes another demand for accept- \nance on the ground of unquestionable truth. We are com- \npelled, however, again to hesitate. And in apologj^ we \noffer this query: Is it usual for language to repeat itself? \n\nIf it be true that all nations have been compelled, \nthrough the paucity of words, to use " each one to denote \na plurality of concepts," is it not something for wonder \nthat the Greeks should employ two words to express the \nsame identical conception ? \n\n2. "We remember, also, that we have been asked, here- \ntofore, to adopt this same proposition without any excep- \ntion. It may be that complete truth has not been 3-et \nreached, and that the list of exceptions will go on to in- \ncrease until these words shall be found to be in harmony \nwith that broad law of language \xe2\x80\x94 one word for many \nconcepts, but not two words for one. \n\n3. We are not sure that all possible differences between \nthese words have been well considered. Points of resem- \nblance may, through prepossession for a certain conclusion, \nhave claimed an attention which induced unconsciousness \nof existent differences. " Words are often employed with \na plurality of meaning, several of which may quadrate, or \nbe supposed to quadrate, with the general tenor of the \ndiscourse. Error is thus possible ; and it is also probable, \nif we have any prepossession in favor of one interpretation \nrather than another." \xe2\x80\x94 Sir W. II. Logic, 437. \n\nBaptist writers are not the only ones who may be sup- \nposed to "have a prepossession in favor of one interpreta- \ntion rather than another" in the case before us; but I \nsuppose they can hardly claim exemption from this dis- \nturbing influence. \n\nHI. Ba-Kti^o) expresses an act, a definite act; mode, and noth- \ning but mode; to dip. Bar.\xe2\x84\xa2 {primary) expresses an act, a \ndefinite act; mode, and nothing but mode; to dip. \n\n\n\nBAPTIST POSTULATES. 25 \n\nBefore giving in adhesion to the demand for an acknowl- \nedgment of the identity of these words as expressed in \nthis concrete form, I would like to know whether the \nvarious phases assumed by the class of verbs to which \nthey belong have been maturely considered in their bear- \nings upon both, separately and jointly. \n\nActive transitive verbs admit of numerous subdivisions \npossessed of characteristics by no means unimportant. \nAmong the divisions will be found, 1. Words which, di- \nrectly, express action. 2. Words which, directly, express \ncondition. \n\nBaptist writers say that the two words under consider- \nation belong to the former of these classes and not to the \nlatter. Has this ever been proved? Has it ever been \nattempted ? Possibly ; but if so, it has never come under \nmy notice. And as there is no self-evidencing power in \nthe statement, I must hesitate in my faith. \n\nWords which, directly, express action are still farther \ndivided into, 1. Words which express action, generally. \n2. Words which express action, particularly. To the \nformer of these classes belong such w T ords as to do, to loork, \nto move, &c. To the second class belong to dig, to roll, to \nspeak, and the like. \n\nTo this latter class, it is said, fid-ru) and fiaTrriZcu must both \nbe attached. But has this ever been, distinctively, proved? \nSuppose that we should be willing to admit that one of \nthem, /fo\'rrw, for example, did belong here, but felt some \nembarrassment in making such admission as to the other; \nis it unreasonable to ask to be relieved from pressure on \nthis point until some proof shall be adduced? \n\nFarther; among words which express action in some \ndefinite form, there are, 1. Those which express action \ncharacterized by rapidity and force. 2. Those which are \nmarked by comparative slowness and gentleness. To the \nformer belongs plunge. To the latter belongs dip. When \nBaptist writers say that /S\xc2\xab-rw and fiarM\'u} mean " to dip," \ndo they mean, understanding^, to say that they belong to \na elass of verbs characterized by a movement " slow and \n\n\n\n26 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ngentle," and not to that class which has the elements \nof " rapidity and power ?" They cannot belong to both \nclasses. If Baptist writers have failed to mark this dis- \ncrimination, and have failed to test, by usage, the true \nclassification of each of these words, they must not be \nastonished if there is questioning, instead of unqualified \nacceptance, of their conclusions. \n\nBut what shall be said of that very large class of words \nwhich does not express, immediately, action either def- \ninitely or indefinitely, and therefore neither powerfully \nnor feebly, but which expresses, directly, result, state, con- \ndition f Such as to put, to set, to lay, expressive of condition \nas to place; to pen, to surround, to inclose, expressive of con- \ndition characterized by some encircling material ; and to \ncover, to bury, to whelm, expressing condition marked by \nenvelopment on all sides ? \n\nAs verbs which embody an act represent power, greater \nor less, through the act which they indicate; so verbs \nwhich shadow forth condition denote influence, greater or \nless, through the nature of such condition. \n\nTo place an object momentarily within a fluid, is to \nplace it in a condition where the influence exerted upon \nit will be of the feeblest character. To place an object \nwithin a fluid element, indefinitely, is to place it in a con- \ndition where the influence exerted upon it will be of the \nstrongest possible character. \n\nTo dip is an act by which the former condition is effected ; \nto merse is a condition of the latter kind effected by any \ncompetent act, the nature and form of which are undefined \nand of absolute indifference. \n\nThese classes of words are separated from each other by \na great gulf, so that there is no passage from the one side \nto the other without an essential change in the nature of \nthe word. \n\nHave Baptist writers maturely considered these distinc- \ntions, and come to a critical judgment, in view of a full \ninduction of facts, that ^dr,rm and ^anzilu) do neither both \nnor either belong to verbs of condition, but do both belong \n\n\n\nBAPTIST POSTULATES. 27 \n\nto verbs expressive of action, and more limitedly to verbs \nexpressive of definite action ? \n\nIf they have so done, I know not where they have hid- \nden the fruit of their labors, and until these shall be re- \nvealed I plead against the demand to accept a conclusion \nwhich ignores the existence of a class of words which are \nin nature and development radically different from " an \nact, a definite act; mode and nothing but mode; to dip." \n\nTV. Ba-rtZoi has the same meaning in figurative as in literal \n2ise, always referring to the act of dipping. \n\nSubscription to this demand, as truth, may be given or \nwithheld according to the idea attached to the " figurative" \nuse of language. Words are sometimes used in connec- \ntions where literality of meaning is impossible, and yet \nwhere it is no less manifest that it is designed to place the \nliteral use vividly before the mind for greater effect. In \nsuch cases of transference of words from physical to meta- \nphysical relations, in order to awaken the intellect by \nunwonted combination, and thus produce a profounder \neffect; the word carries its meaning with it, and produces \nits awakening effect only because it does convey such \nmeaning. \n\nBut where words once used in material relations are \nnow used in immaterial, and that every day, and without \ndesign on the part of the speaker to utter figure, and by \nreason of familiarity incapable of producing any such im- \npression on the mind of the hearer, \xe2\x80\x94 in a word, the simple, \nnecessary, universal tropical use of words should not be \nconsidered as figure. \n\nIf, however, Baptist writers insist that such prosaic use \nof language must be dignified by the title of figure, we \nmust wholly decline the acceptance of their proposition. \nIts contradictory proposition, fta-z\xc2\xa3io, never carries into \nsecondary or tropical use, unmodified, its primary or literal \nuse, is nearer the truth. This must be so in the nature \nof tilings. Words in trope and metaphor make meanings \nfor themselves, and the same word is variously modified \n\n\n\n28 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nin meaning, to fit in the various relations in which from \ntime to time it finds itself. And when the special friends \nof /Sa-rttw run for a solution of every tropical and meta- \nphorical use to the water, they will find that such course \nwill he suggestive largely, to others, of the ridiculous and \nthe absurd, as well as the impossible. \n\nThe tropical or secondary use of words is of great value \nas reflecting light back upon the primary use. And as \nit is true in language, as well as in everything else, that \nan original divergence is made increasingly manifest the \nfarther progress is made from the starting-point, words \nwhose divergence was not so manifest in primary, literal \nuse, will reveal it more strikingly as they pass on to meta- \nphor, trope, and secondary use. \n\nIn general, words which literally are directly expressive \nof action will be employed in metaphor to denote force, not \nphysical but mental and moral ; and words which literally \nare directly expressive of condition, find their use in meta- \nphor to denote influence. \n\nSome words, while expressing a definite act, carry with \nthem some result inseparable from that act. The second- \nary use will develop sometimes one, sometimes another \naspect of such words. To this class belongs dip. Its \nsecondary use gives prominence sometimes to the act, \nsometimes to the effect of the act, alway s characterized by \nfeebleness and limitation. If at any time it appears to \npass beyond these boundaries, the explanation will be \nfound in some adventitious circumstance, in the nature of \nthe object or the character of the element; not, therefore, \ninherent in the word. \n\nThe secondary use of merse never stands related to any \nform of act, but is always used to express the development \nof influence in the fullest measure of which the case will \nadmit. \n\nThe contrast between dip and merse is absolute. \n\nAs we shall have largely to do with the secondary use \nof /9a-r\xc2\xa3tw, it seemed desirable, at once, to bring it into \nprominent view, with distinct intimation of the different \n\n\n\nBAPTIST POSTULATES. 29 \n\nvalue attached to it, compared with that maintained by \nBaptist writers. \n\nIt is admitted, on all hands, that words once used figur- \natively may cease to have a figurative use ascribed to \nthem. The ground of this change is to be found in fre- \nquency of use, and the attainment thereby of power to \nexpress a modified thought of their own. Home Tooke \nand others have shown that all of our prepositions, con- \njunctions, adverbs, adjectives, and abstract substantives, \nare referable to nouns or verbs, describing sensible ideas. \nThese words, in their first use, had all the vividness and \nforce of figure; but they have so no longer. \n\nWhenever a word or phrase becomes so familiar in form \nor application as no longer to be suggestive, to speaker or \nhearer, of physical, ideas, but conveys, on enunciation, an \nidea of its own, it ceases, in fact, to be figurative, and we \nshould cease to treat it as such. \n\nThere are cases in which we may feel embarrassment \nwhether to assign a secondary or a figurative meaning to \na word or phrase. \n\nTake an example which happens to be, this moment, \nunder my eye. \n\n" Had Mr. Harris and others, instead of diving deeper \nthan they had occasion into Aristotelian mysteries, con- \ntented themselves with observing plain facts, they would \nsoon have perceived, .... Whereas, in the way they \nproceeded, their labor was immense, and "... \xe2\x80\x94 Dicers, \nof Parley, xiii. \n\nXow, the form of the phraseology, " diving into Aristo- \ntelian mysteries," is fully figurative, and if its words be \nconsidered disjunctly, "dive" can only be regarded in its \nliteral sense, and "Aristotelian mysteries" as an element \ninto which " Mr. Harris" plunges head foremost. And \nsome might say that this must be and is the only way in \nwhich it can be treated. Let us see. Consider, 1. That \nsuch phraseological combinations are exceedingly com- \nmon. 2. Such familiarity of use educates the mind to \nput aside the physical picturing, and to see only the \n\n\n\n30 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthought which is the outgrowth of that picturing. 3. Such \nphrases come to have the force of compound words, in \nwhich its several parts are no longer to be treated as dis- \ntinct words, but only as syllabic parts of one whole, con- \nveying a new idea. 4. It is extremely doubtful whether \nany physical picture of " Mr. Harris entering head fore- \nmost into Aristotelianism," was for a moment before the \nmind of the writer, or intended to be conveyed to the \nmind of his reader. There is every reason to suppose that \nthe conception before his mind was identical with that \nwhich he subsequently expresses by saying " their labor \nwas immense" and this should govern the interpretation. \nThe origin of the phrase is another matter. Any one \nwho chooses to treat such language as figure will find in \nit all the materials necessary for his purpose; and, on the \nother hand, any one who prefers to regard it as a familiar \nand organic combination, possessed of unity and self-ex- \npression, will have no lack of material for his vindication. \nIt is wholly immaterial which view is adopted, so far as \nsentiment is concerned. The sentiment reached is the \nsame. \n\nBefore leaving this subject, it may be well to remark \nth?t, while "diving into Aristotelian mysteries" may and \ndoes well express "immense labor," dipping into them \nneither does nor can, by any possibility, express any such \nidea, but directly the opposite. On the other hand, mer- \nsion in those mysteries would express, not the idea of \n" immense labor,\' 9 but of complete influence proceeding from \nthis form of Aristotleism, and affecting "Mr. Harris and \nothers" by its controlling power. \n\nAs already remarked, dive, primarily, expressing action \ncharacterized by rapidity and force executed head fore- \nmost, passes, secondarily, to express mental activity, " im- \nmense labor;" while merse, expressing, primarily, no form \nof force, but pointing to condition of intusposition, comes \nto denote, secondarily, not activity of mind, but the recep- \ntion by it of controlling influence. I cannot accept the \nBaptist position that " pencriZm has no secondary meaning; \n\n\n\nCOUNTER PROPOSITIONS. 31 \n\nbut is exclusively employed in a primary, literal, and in a \nfigurative sense, without any modification of import; al- \nways meaning, literally and figuratively, to dip, and noth- \ning but dip." On the contrary, I cannot but regard such \nstatement as error, and nothing but error. \n\n\n\nPKOPOSITIONS TO BE SUSTAINED BY PKOOF. \n\nOver against these four postulates, nakedly assumed, or \nassumed without adequate proof, I would place four other \npropositions, for which no other acceptance is asked than \nthat which may be secured by satisfactory proof. \n\nThe statement of these propositions is now made briefly \nand incompletely, to be filled up hereafter, that the mind \nmay have something definite to rest upon as the inquiry \nprogresses. \n\nThey are as follows: \n\nI. Bd-rat, in primary use, expresses a definite act characterized \nby limitations \xe2\x80\x94 to dip. \n\nII. In secondary use 7 " Dip" expresses a limited mental force, \nand a limited effect. \n\nThe Greek language does not furnish us, so far as I am \naware, with exemplifications of this secondary (metaphor- \nical) use; but it is found in connection with the corres- \nponding words in the Latin and English languages. \n\nIII. Ba-riZio, in primary use, expresses condition characterized \nby complete intusposition, without expressing, and with absolute \nindifference to the form of the act by which such intusposition \nmay be effected, as, also, without other limitations \xe2\x80\x94 to merse. \n\nIV. In secondary use it expresses condition the result of com- \nplete influence effected by any possible means and in any con- \nceivable iuay. \n\nIf anyone should be disposed to imagine that between \nthose postulates and these propositions there can be no \nsuch difference as to revolutionize results, let such idea be \nheld in abeyance until we patiently trace these differences \nto their ultimate conclusions. The mathematician who \n\n\n\n32 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nfound in his calculations a steadily diminishing element, \nand concluded that it might safely he assumed as ulti- \nmately disappearing, and, therefore, might safely be ne- \nglected, was disappointed in the result reached. E"o error \nbeing visible, and the verity of figures being proverbial, \nthe difficulty was inexplicable. At length he determined \nto take up that supposed vanishing quantity, and follow \nit on until it should, in very deed, merge into nothingness. \nIn so doing, however, he found, to his great surprise, that \nas it dijiped into the outer rim of zero, it refused to go \nfarther; but returned upon its path, becoming a steadily \nincreasing quantity, with power adequate to control the \nmathematical result. \n\nAssumption is dangerous, whether in logic or mathe- \nmatics. \n\nLet us assume nothing in this inquiry as too unimportant \nto be investigated ; and we may find that even the differ- \nence between "dip" and "merse," when faithfully followed \nout, becomes no vanishing quantity, but a growing incre- \nment, with power to control, happily and satisfactorily, \nour investigation. \n\nBAPTIST WEITEES. \n\nAs preliminary to a direct investigation of the subject \nbefore us, it seems to be desirable, on many accounts, to \ninstitute an examination of Baptist writings, to see how \nfar they illuminate and sustain their favorite postulates. \n\nIf they do squarely and harmoniously maintain them \nnot only in thesi, but do unfalteringly bear them, challeng- \ning criticism, " through all Greek literature," then they \nwill, at least, win the not ignoble award of consistency and \ncourage; but if, on the other hand, it shall be found, that \nbetween postulates and writings there is no harmony; that \nbetween writer and writer there is as little harmony; that \nthe pages of the same writer compared with each other \nperpetuate this disharmony; that there never has been an \nattempt by any one writer, through these three hundred \n\n\n\nWHAT DOES BAIITIzn MEAN ? 33 \n\nyears, to carry these postulates " through all Greek litera- \nture;" that the burden which they would bind upon others \nthey utterly refuse to bear themselves; then we may hope \nthat such facts will be deemed a fair apology for declining \nthis Baptist postulation, and a sufficient justification for a \ndirect inquiry after that great desideratum \xe2\x80\x94 a meaning \nof ida-TiXw, which may be carried, without fear and without \nreproach, through all Greek literature. \n\nIn examining Baptist writings there must be some limit- \nation. It is not practicable to go over all such writings, \nnor is it necessary to go back indefinitely as to time ; I will, \ntherefore, limit myself to writers of representative and \ngenerally accredited character, and to that period which \nhas elapsed since Baptist views were introduced into this \ncountry. \n\nWHAT DOES BAnTizfl MEAN? \n"It means to dip, and nothing but dip." \n\nEoger Williams and Tractate of A. B., 1G44. \n\nEoger Williams has not left us, so far as I am aware, \nany formal writings of his own on this subject; but while \nhe was on a visit to England, there was a treatise pub- \nlished, which he brought back with him and introduced \ninto this country, and which, therefore, may be accepted \nas embodying his own views. \n\nThis work was designated as a " Tractate by A. E., \nLondon, 1G44." The title which it bore was, "Dipping is \nBaptizing, and Baptizing is Dipping." Whether the defin- \nition thus given by this tractate be true or not, all must \nadmit that it is "definite, clear, and precise, 5 \', and thus \nharmonizes with the postulate. AVe are not merely told \nbaptize and dip are equivalents, nor yet that they are \ncounterparts, duplicates, but that the one is the other, and \nthe other is the one; that they are identical. The attire \ndiffers, in the one case Grecian, in the other case English; \nbut under that attire, in either case\', appears the self-same \npersonage. \n\n3 \n\n\n\n34 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nBeyond this, for definiteness, clearness, and precision, \ndefinition cannot go. These words do, respectively, ex- \npound each other in the most universal and absolute man- \nner. Whatever differs from dip, differs, in like manner, \nfrom baptize; and whatever differs from, or agrees with, \nbaptize, does, in like manner, differ from and agree with \ndip. There is neither deficiency nor excess in the one \ncompared with the other. As a foot is twelve inches and \ntwelve inches are a foot, so baptize is dip and dip is baptize. \n\nNow, so far from objecting to this sharpness of defin- \nition, we feel unfeignedly grateful for it; definition and \npostulate do most admirably echo each other, and thus our \ntask is simplified and assisted. \n\nThe friends of the Baptist scheme claim it as a glory \nthat its doctrines are unambiguous, its definitions are pre- \ncise, and that its ritual service demands an act which is \ndefinite and absolute. Such characteristics, apart from \nthe question of the truth of the scheme to which they \nbelong, are highly meritorious. If they belong to a system \nof truth, they will, thus, best abide assault; and if with \nwhat is erroneous, the error will receive most speedy and \npatent revelation. \n\nfWhile Baptist writers give a testimony one and unam- \nbiguous, we will give them full meed of praise. Now, we \nthank " A. R." for his " definite, clear, and precise" utter- \nance, announcing that " Dipping is Baptizing, and Bap- \ntizing is Dipping." \n\n"A. Baeber, his Treatise of Dipping." \n\nThis was another publication issued at London in the \nsame year with the preceding. Its title is less full and \nperspicuous, but has nothing inconsistent with the other. \nThey were both, doubtless, intended to present the same \nfront as to one single, exclusive, and universal meaning. \n\nThat this identification of Dipping and Baptizing was \nfully recognized at the time by opponents, will appear \nfrom a publication issued in London, 1645. The author \n\n\n\nBARBER \xe2\x80\x94 DR. GALE. 35 \n\nof this work was Dr. Featly. It was avowedly an answer \nto " A. R." An extract will show that the issue made, \xe2\x80\x94 \n" Dipping is Baptizing, and Baptizing is Dipping," \xe2\x80\x94 was \ncontroversially accepted. \n\nDr. Featly thus writes: "But the question is, whether \nno other baptizing is lawful ; or whether dipping in rivers \nis so necessary to Baptism, that none are accounted bap- \ntized but those who are dipped after such a manner? This, \nwe say, is false ; neither do any of the texts alleged prove \nit. It is true, dipping is a kind of baptizing; but all bap- \ntizing is not dipping. The apostles were baptized by fire, \nyet were they not dipped into it. Tables and beds are \nsaid to be baptized; that is, washed, yet not dipt. The \nIsraelites in the wilderness were baptized with the cloud, \nyet not dipt into it. The children of Zebedee were to be \nbaptized with the baptism of blood wherewith our Saviour \nwas baptized, yet neither he nor they were dipt into blood. \nLastly, all the Fathers speak of the baptism of tears where- \nwith all penitents are washed, yet there is no dipping in \nsuch baptism." (pp. 45, 50.) \n\nThis quotation is made, not for the sake of its argument \n(that is not our business now); but to show that the assault, \nwhether successfully or unsuccessfully, is fairly delivered \nagainst the position \xe2\x80\x94 " Baptizing is Dipping, and Dipping \nis Baptizing." \n\nWhether, then, we look at the language itself, or at the \ninterpretation given to it on its enunciation, all must admit \nthat the Baptist position in London, in 1644, and thence \ntransferred to Rhode Island by Roger Williams, was most \nunequivocal. \n\nDr. Gale. London, 1711. \n1 Dipping only is Baptism." \n\nMore than half a century after A. R., Dr. Gale thus \nwrites : "We cannot believe that it is so doubtful in sacred \nScripture as many pretend, whether dipping only be bap- \ntism." (p. 93.) \n\n\n\n36 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n" To baptize, L e. dip \'em by affusion or sprinkling." \n\nThis phraseology is used by Gale to show an absurd use \nof terms. He says, " It is absurd to speak of baptizing by \nsprinkling, because baptizing is dipping." \n\n" The word baptize necessarily includes in its signification \ndipping, and that Christ by commanding to baptize has com- \nmanded to dip only." (p. 94.) \n\n" The primary meaning is simply to dip." (p. 95.) \n\n"I don\'t remember one passage where all other senses \nare not excluded besides dipping." (p. 96.) \n\n" Though; the genius of our language may oblige us \nsometimes to render paxri\'to to wet, or wash, or dye, &c, \nit is most absurd to infer that it, therefore, signifies any- \nthing else besides or different from to dip/ 7 (p. 186.) \n\nWhatever of bluntness or of blunder there may be in \nthis language, it is largely redeemed by its heartiness of \nfaith. \n\n" Christ, by commanding to baptize, has commanded to \ndip only." All other senses are excluded. To doubt \nwhether the Scriptures so teach is to be guilty of false \npretence. To conclude that a word which we are obliged \nto translate wet, wash,, dye, &c, can mean anything else \nthai, dip, is most absurd (!). \n\nSuch language show s r unmistakably, that it was by faith \nthat Dr. Gale proclaimed that " only" meaning, while \ndeeply enveloped in clouds and darkness. "With manful \ncourage he holds on to dip while sorely (it may be "ab- \nsurdly") struggling with "wet,, and wash, and dye, $c." \n\nAs coming events cast their shadows before, we may, \nherein, also find a foreshadowing of unity entangled amid \ndiversity, to be a future and fruitful source of perplexity \nto our Baptist friends.. \n\nWhether " wet, wash, dye, &c," are meanings of this \nword, I do not now inquire; but whether or not, the ques- \ntion is equally pertinent \xe2\x80\x94 What must be the ideas of \nlanguage entertained by that man who feels " obliged" to \ntranslate a word by these terms, while he believes that it \nhas no such meaning at all? \n\n\n\nABRAHAM BOOTH. 37 \n\nAbraham Booth. London, 1711. \nM The primary sense of the term is to dip/\' \n\nThe "venerable Booth" appears as a writer somewhat \nmore than three-fourths of a century after the learned Dr. \nGale. \n\nHe thus writes : " When our Lord says, * go, baptize,\' he \nspeaks the language of legislation; he delivers Divine \nlaw. Does Jehovah make use of a term which properly \nsignifies dipping? He means as he speaks, and requires \nimmersion. That dipping, pouring, and sprinkling denote \nthree different acts, we have many examples in the writ- \nings of Moses." (pp. 81, 82.) \n\n" While Pcodobaptists maintain that our great Lawgiver \nintended anything less than dipping,\'" (p. 95.) \n\n" I do not, indeed, recollect so much as one learned \nwriter, in the whole course of my reading, who denies \nthat the primary sense of the term is to dip." (p. 125.) \n\nMr. Booth is confident and precise in these utterances, \nand generally harmonious with himself and his predeces- \nsors. The exception to this harmony is found in the \nstatement, that when "Jehovah uses a term that signifies \ndipping\'" (and "He means as He speaks," yet) "He requires \nimmersion.\'\'\'\' \n\nNow, this new word introduces a note of discord. Mr. \nBooth has not proved that " dipping is immersion, and \nimmersion is dipping." The proposition is not self-evi- \ndentiy true. On the contrary it is most evidently untrue. \nThese terms are not only devoid of identity, but they do \nnot belong to the same class of words. This, however, is \nnot the time to enter into a full examination of the points \nof difference. I only, therefore, remark that " dipping" is \ncharacterized, essentially, by limitations in all directions, \nwhile " immersion" is as essentially destitute of them. \nThe position of Booth, then, i3 that when Jehovah com- \nmands a result full of limitations, he requires a result \ndestitute of all limitations! This jar, by reason of the \n\n\n\n38 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nintroduction of " immersion," added to " wet, wash, dye, \n&c," induces the feeling that the "one only meaning" \nholds its position by but a precarious tenure. However, \nwe must content ourselves, for the present, by simply at- \ntaching to this notable passage an N.B. \n\n"F. A. Cox. London, 1824." \n" The idea of dipping is in every instance." \n\nAfter the lapse of a third of a century we meet with \nDr. Cox. \n\nThis writer, in common with his predecessors, believed \nthat pdTtra) and fiarai^a) not only had some elements in com- \nmon, but that they were most absolutely equivalents; \nindeed, that the greatest difference between them was that \nthe one word was spelled with two, and the other with \nthree syllables. He interchanges them at will*, and quotes, \nindifferently, passages where the one word or the other is \nfound as equally to the purpose. \n\nDr. Cox informs us, that " the idea of dipping is in every \ninstance conveyed; and no less so by all the classical cur- \nrent uses of the terms (/SaTrrw and ^a-xi^m) in question.\'\'\' \n(p. *S.) \n\nHaving quoted a number of passages in which dip is \ngiven as the translation, he adds : " Numberless other \npassages of the same kind might easily be introduced, \nwere it at all needful; let these, however, suffice as speci- \nmens of the undoubted use and current acceptation of the \ncontested terms." \n\nThis utter confusion of these words, so long persisted in \nby Baptist writers, notwithstanding all the evidence to the \ncontrary, is now, I believe, universally abandoned so far as \nrelates to dyeing. The acknowledgment of this error, so \nlong and so earnestly maintained, might lead, one would \nsuppose, to some reserve in maintaining that these diverse \nwords are in all other respects identical. But this still \nremains as an acquisition of truth to be attained in the \nfuture. Let us hope, not in the far distant future. \n\n\n\nCOX \xe2\x80\x94 CARSON, 39 \n\nIt is very evident that Dr. Cox gives his clear testimony \nto the undoubted use, " in every instance," scriptural and \nclassical, of ftd~Tw and iSa-r^w, as conveying the meaning, \nto dip. \n\nHow much this conclusion may have been affected by \nthe confounding of these words with each other, and by \nthe transference of the meaning of ftd-Tco to 0ojrreCa>, I do \nnot in on ire. To point the finger toward so weak a point \nis sufficiently suggestive, and will prevent any thoughtful \nperson from embracing conclusions which are founded \non it. \n\n\n\nAlexander Carson, LL.D., Baptist Board of Publication. \nPhiladelphia. 1853. \n\n" My position is that it always signifies to dip ; never expressing any- \nthing but mode." " To dip or immerse.\'\' 1 u It never means to dye." \n\nDr. Carson thus quotes from Dr. Gale : " I think it is \nplain from the instances already mentioned, that they \n{fid-rut and pariT^u)) are exactly the same as to significa- \ntion;" and then expresses his own opinion thus : " As far \nas respects an increase or diminution of the action of the \nverb, I perfectly agree with the writer. That the oiu is \nmore or less than the other, as to mode or frequency, is a \nperfectly groundless conceit. Bdnrio has two meanings, \nthe primary to dip, the secondary to dye : /Sa-rc\'C^, in the \nwhole history of the Greek language, has but one. It not \nonly signifies to dip or immerse, but it never has any other \nmeaning." (p. 19.) "If we dip an object in any way, we \ncause it to dip or sink." (p. 20.) " The mode essentially \ndenoted by it." " Baptism means to lay under water." \n" This was a large object that was not supposed to be \ntaken up and dipped, but to be caused to dip, as it were, \nby sinking." (p. 21.) "It is strictly univocal." (p. 23.) \n" The proof is equally strong with reference to fta-r^u. \nMy position is that it always signifies to dip; never ex- \npressing anything but mode." (p. 55.) \n\nDr. Carson\'s writings mark an era among Baptist authors \n\n\n\n40 CLASSIC BAPtlSM. \n\nas to the accepted meaning of fiar-lZu). They had, heretofore, \nrefused to acknowledge any difference whatever between \nthis word and pdTtrai, but from the time of Dr. Carson\'s enun- \nciation, that the one word presided over the mysteries of \ndyeing, while the other was excluded from all participation \nin them, the doctrine was promptly and universally ac- \ncepted. Dr. Carson does not attempt to show why the \nwork of dyeing fell to the lot of one word rather than \nanother ; on the contrary, he would have us believe that \nthe distinction was wholly without reason; because "it is \na perfectly groundless conceit to suppose that the one is \nmore or less than the other." \n\nSuch ratiocination makes another severe demand on \nour faith. It was hard to believe that two words, native \nborn, existed in the same language without any difference, \n" either more or less;" but this we were asked to believe. \nWe are now asked to believe, that of two such words one \nsecures a secondary meaning while the other utterly fails, \nwithout reason assigned or assignable, seeing that the two \nare identical in "mode," and "force," and " frequency," \n&c, &c. \n\nNow, we do not say that both or either of these state- \nments present an impossibility; but there is so much of \nincredibility about them that, in the absence of reason, \nthere should be the most conclusive evidence of fact. \n\nThere has been, absolutely, no evidence to prove that \nPa*\xe2\x84\xa2 and (3a7TT%o> " differ neither more nor less" in their \nprimary meaning; and consequently there has been no \nevidence to show that fid-rut has secured its secondary \nmeaning, without reason and in a purely arbitrary man- \nner. We can accept of neither of these positions, and the \nnecessity for their assumption brings down a double and \ndamaging blow against the Baptist system. \n\nBut not only is this admission of Dr. Carson of a differ- \nence as to secondary meaning, like the letting out of water \nwhich threatens to sweep away his scheme; but it is no \nless matter for sinister foreboding that he feels the neces- \nsity of introducing into the severely simple definition of \n\n\n\nALEXANDER CARSON. 41 \n\nhis predecessors a pregnant " or/\' qualifying, also, the \nprimary meaning. It is, indeed, most true that there is \nno acknowledgment of valuable service rendered by tins \nparticle, while the whole book is made to rest upon it. \n"Whatever Dr. C. may think, others will not consent to his \nslipping away from the " definite, clear, and precise" defini- \ntion, "baptizing is dipping, and dipping is baptizing," into \n"dip or immerse ," "or" something else. If it be affirmed \nthat to dip is to immerse, and to immerse is to dip, we \nreply, with a quiet smile, then this redundant " or im- \nmerse" will only be an incumbrance, therefore indulge us \nwith its dismissal. But if " or immerse" be admitted to \nbe anything "more or less" than dip, what becomes of the \npostulate \xe2\x80\x94 "one meaning through all Greek literature" ? \n\nSo long as Dr. Carson declares that " PoxtiXm has but one \nmeaning in the whole history of the Greek language, that \nit is strictly univocal, that mode is essentially denoted by \nit, that increase or diminution of action of the verb com- \npared with Paz\xe2\x84\xa2 is a groundless conceit, that it always \nsignifies to dip ;" this is all clear and self-harmonious, and \nmingles with, without clouding, the earlier pellucid Bap- \ntist testimony. But when he goes on to say: " It not only \nsignifies to dip or immerse;" "if we dip an object itfkny \nicay, w t c cause it to dip or sink;" " caused to dip as it were \nby sinking;" "baptism means to lay under water" &c, &c, \nwe are fairly bewildered, and cannot imagine what Dr. \nCarson can be thinking of. \n\nWhat conceivable unifying bond subsists between " dip \nand nothing but dip," and " dip in any way" " dip or im- \nmerse" " dip or sink" " dip or lay wider water"! So long \nas the utterance is \xe2\x80\x94 baptizing is dipping, and dipping is \nbaptizing, consistency is maintained; when this takes the \nmultiform shape, " dipping, or immersing, or sinking, or lay- \ning wider water \xe2\x80\x94 is baptizing," the one meaning has van- \nished. \n\n\n\n42 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nE. Fuller, D.D., Charleston, Southern Baptist Board of \nPublication". 1859. \n\nDip, sink, plunge, immerse. \n\nDr. Fuller, in entering on his work, makes loud and \nearnest proclamation, like his predecessors, of the act of \nbaptism and one definite meaning; which act and which \nmeaning is to be found nowhere save in such verbal \niteration. \n\nHe says : " In all translations of classical works fta-rgu \nis rendered dip, immerse. In short, the translators of our \nBibles have themselves exposed the pretext, that there is \nany difficulty as to the word. In the case of ISTaaman, the \nSeptuagint uses fiaTZT&aj, and the translation renders it dip." \n\n(pp. 10, 11.) \n\n" In Greek, the addition of zo rather enforces than \ndiminishes the primitive word. And just so fia-LTu), to dip; \nfia-Tga), to make one dip, that is, to immerse. \n\n" Where the ordinance is mentioned, paxrZa) is always \nthe word; and never was there a word whose meaning \nwas more clear and precise." (pp. 12, 13.) \n\n" From these examples it is manifest that fiarMlu) means \nto immerse. If any one attempts to contradict this argu- \nment, let him meet it fairly and honestly." (p. 17.) \n\nDr. Fuller gives as a caption to his book \xe2\x80\x94 " the act of \nBaptism" \xe2\x80\x94 showing that he set out to advocate some def- \ninite and exclusive act as belonging to ritual baptism. \nThis lie supposed, at the outset, to be very clear and \nprecise, as is manifest, from his saying, on the second \npage, " Jesus says, he that believeth and is baptized shall \nbe saved. To charge him with wrapping up his meaning \nin obscure phraseology is impious ; it is to accuse him of \nthe enormous guilt of the Eoman tyrant," &c. For a while \nit seemed as though this definite act was to be represented \nby dip (inasmuch as the Doctor approves of the rendering by \n" our translators" from the Septuagint!); but, like others \nof his friends, he finds it for some reason convenient to \nsay one thing and do another. lie gives fourteen classical \n\n\n\nFULLER \xe2\x80\x94 RIPLEY. 43 \n\nquotations to establish the meaning of j3a-TiZ<u, announcing \nthat it is manifest that it means, not dip, but immerse. \nBut what is strangest of all is, that this manifest meaning \n(in which there is no definite act at all), he never gives as \nthe translation of any one of his fourteen quotations, but \nintroduces dip, sink, and plunge. Are these four terms \nthe same in " form and force," " neither more nor less," \nrepresenting each, alike and equally, the one, definite, \nmodal act of baptism ? If not, why put shame on an in- \nquiry which purports to make proof of such act by the use \nof such contrariant terms ? \n\nIf we turn from.this confusion to seek " the act of bap- \ntism" in that meaning indicated by Dr. Fuller\'s philology \n\xe2\x80\x94 baptize, to make dip \xe2\x80\x94 our search is all fruitless. This \ndiscovery having been made by the help of zo, it would \nseem to be regarded as too precious to be used, for never \nagain does it appear throughout the book. \n\nNotwithstanding, therefore, "there never was a word \nthe meaning of which was more clear and precise," Dr. \nFuller seems to be at a loss which to choose amid dip, \nand make to dip, and sink, and plunge, and immerse, in \norder to mark " the act of baptism," which, as appears \nfrom the title of his book, he was anxious to accomplish. \n\nProf. Ripley, Newton Theological Institute. 1833. \nTo dip, its radical, proper meaning. \n\nProfessor Ripley pays deferential regard, in definition, \nto the traditional meaning, to dip. \n\nlie translates; "the sword was so dipped as even to be- \ncome heated," remarking, "Should the reader stop to think \ndipped into whatf How instantaneous and how irresistible \nthe reply, into the blood." The meaning, dipped, is not \nforced or inappropriate, (p. 19.) \n\nMy business, now, is not to question interpretations, but \nto let Baptist writers speak and make out, if they can, a \nprima facie case for themselves, indicating, as they pass \nalong, only such difficulties as appear on the surface. \n\n\n\n44 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nAgain he remarks: " One of which sorts was performed \nby the clipping of the hands into water, and this was prop- \nerly expressed by the peculiar term (\xc2\xa3ajrn\'C\xc2\xab>) which he has \nemployed. If so, this word is here used in its radical, \nproper meaning." (p. 42.) \n\nThis " radical and proper meaning" is announced only \nto be rejected on the succeeding page. \n\nIt would, surely, take the seven wise men of Greece to \nrender a reason justly defensive of such procedure. \n\nOthers, less wise, will be tempted to think that theory \nsuggests one course, while the exigencies of truth con- \nstrain to the other. \xc2\xab \n\n\n\nJ. L. Dagg, Churcti Order, Southern Baptist Publication, \nCharleston. 1859. \n\n\' \' To immerse. \' \' \n\nProfessor Dagg quotes some fifty passages containing \nthe word pdtrcto, each of which he translates by dip. He \nalso quotes a still larger number containing the word \n/SflBrr^w, each of which he translates by immerse. \n\nUnless the Professor is charged with acting very un- \nreasonably, while he aets very systematically, we must \nconclude that these persistent differences in translation \nare intended to denote real differences in the words trans- \nlated. And this conclusion is well founded; although the \ndifference appears to be imperfectly apprehended and in- \nadequately stated. \n\nWe are told, " the termination gat is, with greater prob- \nability, supposed by others to add to the primitive word \nthe signification of to cause or to make, like the termination \nize in legalize, to make legal. According to this hypothesis, \nif fidxTio signifies to immerse, ^aizriZai signifies to cause to be \nimmersed. This makes the two words nearly or quite \nsynonymous." \n\nNot "nearly or quite," but absolutely, according to Pro- \nfessor Dagg\'s explanation of this causality. Baxra) causes \nits object "to be immersed," and parMZio, according to the \n\n\n\nDAGG STOVEL. % 45 \n\nexplanation, does precisely the same thing. The explana- \ntion is faulty. It makes /?\xc2\xab?:-\xc2\xa3\xc2\xab> causative not of fid-Tw but \nof the immersion, over which (SditTw is itself already causa- \ntive; and so only repeats that word. To be truly causative \nof t 3d-7(o, it must reach the cause which puts pdxraj into \noperation ; that is, it must cause some person to dip. \n\nOf more value is the statement \xe2\x80\x94 " pdiztu) more frequently \ndenotes slight or temporary immersion than \xc2\xa3a7tr\xc2\xa3a>. Hence \nthe English word dip, which properly denotes slight or \ntemporary immersion, is more frequently its appropriate \nrendering. In nearly one-half of the examples in which \nfta-rtXio occurs in the literal sense, it signifies the immer- \nsion which attends drowning and the sinking of ships." \n(p. 33.) \n\nThe Professor here fairly touches the nerve of truth with- \nout fully laying it bare ; yet sufficiently so to send a shock \nthrough all the Baptist system. If /?\xc2\xab--\xc2\xab> signifies " an \nimmersion which is slight and temporary ;" and if paitri\'io sig- \nnifies "an immersion which is profound and enduring;" \nwhat becomes of the dicta, "baptizing is dipping, and dip- \nping is baptizing" \xe2\x80\x94 " one meaning, dip or immerse" \xe2\x80\x94 " that \nthe one is more or less than the other is a groundless con- \nceit"? \n\nIf Professor Dagg is right, the postulate which demands \nequality "in form, and force, and effect," for these words, \nis all wrong. \n\nC. Stotel. London, 1846. \n11 It means, caused the people to dip." \n\n" Ba-rLXio, is causal of fidirrw. The baptizing of John, \nmight have been performed entirely by other hands under \nJohn\'s direction. The sense of the original must be re- \ntained in the causal form of the verb; and if it be right \nto say, let Lazarus dip the tip of his finger in water, it \ncannot be wrong to say, John caused the people to dip, or \nto be dipped in water." \n\nWhether Mr. StoveFs philological principles be right \n\n\n\n46 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nor not, he seems disposed to apply them right honestly. \nWhile Drs. Carson, Fuller, and Dagg all unite in making \nf3axriZ<o causative of /Sobr\xe2\x84\xa2, they all unite, also, in declining \nto apply the principle. They still represent the one as the \nalter ego of the other. They were aware that if made \nreally causative, it could find no exemplification in Scrip- \nture facts. I dip, expresses an act which I perform. I bap- \ntize, if causative of to dip, would make the act expressed \nby that word to be done by some other person. Now, \nthis Mr. Stovel acknowledges, very justly, for good reason- \ning, but very awkwardly for the history of ritual baptism. \nHe should, however, have gone a step farther, and said, \nnot only that John might have stood by while he baptized, \nto wit, caused the people to dip themselves or one another, \nbut that he must have so done. "For it cannot be wrong \nto say, John caused the people to dip (themselves), or to \nbe dipped (by one another), in water," seeing that it is \nsaid, u let Lazarus dip the tip of his finger in water"! \n\nNovelties in this controversy are rare; but Mr. Stovel \nseems disposed to treat us to such an exhibition. Whether \nit will tend to the gratification of his friends ; or whether \nthey will think that his philology carried out elucidates \nthi^t one, definite, precise, clear, and only meaning of \npmtTi\'oi is doubtful. \n\n\n\nM. P. Jewett, A.M. Boston, 1854. \n" To dip, or immerse, and never has any other meaning." \n\n" Ba-TCa>, in the whole history of the Greek language, \nhas but one meaning. It signifies to dip or immerse, and \nnever has any other meaning." (p. 13.) \n\n" In baptism, we are commanded to perform the act \nrepresented by the word baptize." \n\nIn the first of these quotations, Prof. Jewett repeats the \nlanguage of Dr. Carson. In the second, he reiterates a \ndeclaration handed down from mouth to mouth, without \n\n\n\nDIP \xe2\x80\x94 PLUNGE \xe2\x80\x94 IMMERSE. 47 \n\napparent consciousness of its import, or that its utterers \nwere under obligation to conform to it. \n\nTo affirm, in the critical discussion of a word which is \ndeclared to he the most precise of all words, and whose \nvalue has been determined to a hair, that it means dip or \nimmerse, is of all extraordinary things the most extra- \nordinary. \n\nIf it be, indeed, true that Baptizo, in the whole history \nof the Greek language, has but one meaning; and if it be, \nindeed, true that Jewett and friends have found out what \nis that meaning; then, why not tell us what it is? "Why \ngive us such Delphic utterance as \xe2\x80\x94 it means this; or if it \ndoes not mean this, then it means that; but if it does not \nmean that, then certainly it does mean something else! \n\nWill an attempt be made to rebut this condemnation \nby the assertion that dip and immerse have but one mean- \ning in the whole history of the English language? Such \na line of defence would be bold, hazardous, desperate, but \nthe exigency is great ; let it be tried. \n\nWhile waiting the issue of such effort, we will venture \nto say that such clay-iron definition, persisted in through \nlong years, repeated by unnumbered authors, and in con- \ntradiction to cherished and fundamental postulates, caiyiot \nproceed either from defective knowledge or through over- \nsight; but must proceed from some unrevealed and dire \nnecessity. \n\nDIP\xe2\x80\x94 PLUNGE\xe2\x80\x94 IMMEKSE. \n\nIt may be worth while to ask and obtain an answer to \nthe question \xe2\x80\x94 Are Baptist writers, while using these terms \navowedly to express a meaning which is " one, definite, \nprecise, clear," aware that these terms do not and cannot \nexpress any such meaning ? \n\nLet them answer for themselves. First, hear "the ven- \nerable Booth." \n\n" The reader needs only to clip into a Hebrew or Greek \nLexicon, into Ainsworth\'s Latin, or Johnson\'s English \nDictionary, to be convinced of this. I have just dipped \n\n\n\n48 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ninto the works of such an author. Now this, far from \nsignifying that I feel my mind, as it were, immersed in the \nauthor\'s writings, only means, as Johnson tells us, that I \nhave entered slightly into them." \xe2\x80\x94 Posdobaptism, vol. i, \npp. 115, 123. \n\nSurely Booth was aware that dip and immerse could \nnot express one and the same meaning, whatever may be \nthe fact with regard to others. But he did not stand alone. \nWe have but to call to mind the language of Professor \nDagg to see distinctly stated that primary, literal use of \ndip, in which this figurative use of Booth is grounded. \n\n" Bd--a> more frequently denotes slight or temporary im- \nmersion." Here, in the trivial effect which must follow \nupon "a slight and temporary immersion" in any physical \nelement, we see the most satisfactory foundation laid for \nthe expression of an extremely limited knowledge of an \nauthor, by saying, " I have merely dipped into his writ- \nings." \n\nOn the other hand, Dagg says: " pa-ziZa> signifies the \nimmersion which attends drowning or the sinking of \nships." And he might have added: "In the whole his- \ntory of Greek literature" fia-ru) is never once employed to \ndenote such immersion. By such characteristics as attend \non immersion unlimited (unlimited as to the depth to \nwhich it penetrates, and unlimited as to the time of its \ncontinuance), immerse becomes perfectly adapted to ex- \npress, as is done by Booth in figure, the extreme opposite \nof dip, namely, thorough engagedness in the study of an \nauthor. \n\nWho could imagine that writers so conversant with these \ndifferences would ever venture to ask any one, in a critical \ncontroversy, to adopt, as the meaning of a word, a word \nwhich they affirm has but one meaning, dip or immerse? \n\nBut what do Baptists think of plunge ? Is there author- \nitative sanction for making it co-ordinate with dip and \nimmerse in expounding fiaxTtZto ? And if so, do they re- \ngard all these terms of " the same form and force" ? \n\nIn regard to the first of these inquiries, an answer is \n\n\n\nDIP \xe2\x80\x94 PLUNGE \xe2\x80\x94 IMMERSE. 49 \n\nfound in " the 40th article of the Confession of Faith \nof those churches which are commonly, though falsely, \ncalled Anabaptist," which says: "The way and manner \nof dispensing of this ordinance the Scriptures hold out to \nbe dipping or plunging." This testimony is two centuries \nold. It has, however, received constant reaffirmation dur- \ning all this interval. A single exemplification of which, \nrepresentative of all, may be found in the following lan- \nguage of Dr. Cox: "Dipping, plunging, or immersing, is \nthe unquestionable, settled, and universally admitted prim- \nitive signification." \n\nHear, now, Booth, as to the fitness of these three terms \nto express with equal absoluteness one precise meaning: \n"Dr. Williams uniformly contrasts bis chosen verb purify, \nwith the term plunge; as if that had been the expression \nmost commonly used by us. But this, notwithstanding \nhis boasted candor, is very unfair. For he knows that it \nis not the verb to plunge, but the word immerse, that is \nusually adopted by us on this occasion. He, also, knows \nthat the term plunge does not signify, merely, to immerse; \nbut suddenly and violently to immerse; for which reason \nwe do not think it the most eligible word by which to \nrender the enacting term baptize. On the verb active, to \nplunge, Dr. Johnson says: \'This word, to what action \nsoever it be applied, commonly expresses cither violence \nor suddenness in the agent, or distress in the patient.\' \nXow, it should seem that, for this very reason, Dr. Wil- \nliams made choice of the term plunge, rather than im- \nmerse or dip, in order to give a ridiculous air to our \nsentiments and practice." \xe2\x80\x94 Animad. on Ed. Williams. Lon- \ndon, 1792, p. 316. \n\nMost strange complaint on the part of this venerable \nman! Dr. Williams "uniformly" employs plunge to ex- \npress the meaning. And is this to be urged as a ground \nof complaint by those who postulate uniformity of mean- \ning " through the whole history of Greek literature"? It \nsignifies, "suddenly and violently to immerse;" therefore \nwe do not think it the most eligible word by which to \n\n\n\n\n\n\n50 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nrender baptize." But who selected this word ? Was it not \nthe Baptist " Confession of Faith,\' 7 which said, "plunging \nis the way and manner of dispensing this ordinance taught \nin the Scriptures"? Was it not Dr. Cox, representing a \nhost of others, who said, " plunging is the unquestionable, \nsettled, and universally admitted primitive signification\'\' 1 ? \nAnd now shall it be said, to use this word as the exponent \nof baptize is " very unfair," and is clone " in order to give \na ridiculous air to our sentiments and practice"! Surely \nthe charge of unfairness, and of purpose to ridicule, rests \nnot on Dr. Williams; but on those who for generations \nhave insisted that plunge was the meaning of that word \nwhich is declared to be of unresolvable simplicity, and \nwithout the shadow of a change through a thousand years. \n\nIf harsh complaint is to be preferred because an " oppon- \nent made choice" of an alternative meaning, why is such \nalternative meaning held forth, page after page, by Booth \nhimself, as well as by others? Why say dip, or immerse, or \nplunge, or \xe2\x80\x94 , if an opponent to whom such language is ad- \ndressed is "very unfair" to notice it? Would that Baptist \nwriters, instead of employing defining terms "most com- \nmonly," or speaking of such as are " usually adopted," and \nfinding fault with a "uniform" use for a declared univocal \nword, might be found aiming at consistency by settling \ndown on some word which they would venture to carry \nthrough all Greek literature. But while we have been told \nthrough hundreds of years that pa--%<a has but one mean- \ning; that that meaning is clear and precise; that difficulty \nin translating is pretence; still it remains an ominous fact, \nthat no Baptist writer has ever ventured io give us the \nexponential translating word, vindicating his judgment by \na uniform application to all cases of use. We must have, \nsooner or later, a long procession of terms whose only uni- \nformity is their interlinking vinculum " or." \n\nBut while plunge, thus tried, is found wanting, Booth \nthinks, " our sentiment and practice" would not be put to \nshame by the use of "dip or immerse."\' Unhappily for \nthis conclusion, "dip," since Booth\'s day, has fallen into \n\n\n\nDIP \xe2\x80\x94 PLUNGE \xe2\x80\x94 IMMERSE. 51 \n\nno little disrepute among its once ardent admirers. And \nthe plea might again be presented \xe2\x80\x94 a not usually adopted;" \nand the complaint made of " unfairness," and of a purpose \nto make the subject " ridiculous;" if an opponent should \n" uniformly" use this petite and undignified word. \n\nIt is important to bear in distinct remembrance that \nplunge was discarded because of its essential and distin- \nguishing characteristics; " effecting an immersion sudden!}/ \nand violently." Is dip to be discarded on similar grounds, \nto wit, because of its essential and distinguishing charac- \nteristics, which are, as Dagg informs us, " superficial and \ntemporary immersion?" It would seem to be even so. \nAnd, thus, while Booth repudiated plunge, because it \nmade both " our sentiments and practice ridiculous," \nwhile his successors have discovered that clip must be \nthrown into the background, because uniformly applied \nto " the sentiment" it would make classic Greek " ridicu- \nlous;" still it must be kept at hand for " practice," as \notherwise Baptist baptism cannot be administered. Thus \nwe have a word which, e confesso, cannot be applied to the \nusage of fta-zt\'Cco^ made the sole, sovereign arbiter in ad- \nministrative baptism. \n\nI say that this hopeless break down of dip is a matter \nof confession. Without multiplying testimony, one or two \ninstances may suffice as representatives of many. \n\nProf. Dagg gives as the uniform translation of ,%-rw, to \ndip. He does not give this word as the translation of \nfiaTcrgat in a single instance. Why is this ? It was not of \naccident; for he tells us that it was of design. It was not \nbecause he regarded the different words employed as of \nthe same value; for he expressly tells us that they were ot \nwidely different value. It was not because it was a matter \nof indifference to the system which he advocates; for the \nBaptist system lives or dies as dip does or does not rep- \nresent paicrgto. Why, then, such translation? The only \nanswer that can be given is \xe2\x80\x94 Prof. Dagg thus confesses \nthat "the sentiment" that dip expounds parciZa, must, in \nthe face of Greek usage, be utterly abandoned; while in \n\n\n\n52 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthe face of Baptist " practice" claimed to be founded on \npaxTtXw, it must, imperatively, be retained. \n\nHear, also, Dr. Fuller. Dr. Carson had said of this \nword, " It is strictly univocal. My position is, that it al- \nways signifies to dip." And in a sea-coast baptism, by the \nrising tide, he declared with unflinching courage, that the \nword in such a ease had the meaning to dip just as much \nas in any other. But Dr. Fuller, on the same passage, \nwith fainter heart, remarks : "A fourth passage is pro- \nduced to show that ^a^zi^aj does not always denote the \nact of plunging (or dipping). My position is that paicT%a> \nmeans to immerse."\' (p. 29.) Thus these doctors flatly an- \ntagonize each other.. The one affirming, " My position is \nthat pa-xl^u always signifies to dip," and manfully protect- \ning his protegS under difficulties; while the other, alarmed \nat the inrolling billows, exclaims, "My position is that \n^aTzri^o) means to immerse," and abandons clip to a hope- \nless sea immersion. Thus dip perishes amid the conflict \nof its friends. \n\n" THE ACT OF BAPTISM\xe2\x80\x94 THE ACT IS IMMERSION." \n\nWhile Dr. Fuller discards "the act of plunging," and \nwith it the act of dipping, he fondly imagines that immerse \nwill more than make up this double loss,, and furnish to \nhim " the act of Baptism," which will never "make ridicu- \nlous our sentiments or our practice." \n\nThis welcome and much-needed auxiliary he finds, and \nwith exultation announces thus: "-It is as plain as the sun \nin the heavens that the act is immersion." \n\nIt must have been a remarkably cloudy day, and the \nsolar position singularly uncertain, when Dr. Fuller made \nthis comparison. Mathematical calculation can locate "the \nsun in the heavens," even amid clouds and darkness; but \nhow the ingenuity of Dr. Fuller can locate act in " immer- \nsion," so as to give it definiteness, clearness, precision, \nmodality, remains to be seen. \n\nWhen the Doctor speaks of "the act of immersion" \n\n\n\n. IMMERSE. 53 \n\nbathed in solar effulgence, he must mean to designate some \ndefinite act, if he meant to speak anything to the purpose. \nHe is ensealed in rebutting an argument addressed against \nthe Baptist position \xe2\x80\x94 fimniZtB expresses a definite act \xe2\x80\x94 and \nin doing so assails those definite acts, plunging, dipping, \nwhich are selected by the advocates of the system. Dr. \nFuller finds the argument against these acts unanswerable, \nand he seeks escape from absolute defeat by abandoning \nthese long-cherished representatives, and falling back \nupon the support of a new auxiliary \xe2\x80\x94 " the act of immer- \nsion." In doing this there is no avowal of abandonment \nof the principle of the system, namely, definite act, but only \nof the specific acts, plunging and dipping, in the place or \nwhich he offers the definite act which is exhibited in " im- \nmersion." We are, therefore, compelled to suppose that \nDr. Fuller wishes to be understood as still maintaining, \nwhile in fact abandoning, the theory that fiaxriZw expresses \na definite act. Such holding on and letting go of a vital \npoint in argument cannot be allowed. Plunging expresses \na definite act; but Dr. Fuller frankly says that will not \nanswer as the one definite act of all Greek literature. \nDipping expresses a definite act; but this too, (we may \nbelieve with profound regret,) he declines to adopt. \'* Im- \nmersion" no more expresses a definite act than does "point \nno point" express a sharply defined headland. It expresses \ndefinite condition, not -definite action. And Dr. Fuller, \nin saying "the act is immersion," imitates "the Roman \ntyrant," whom he condemns for " wrapping up his mean- \ning in obscure phraseology. 1 \' \n\n\n\nIMMERSE\xe2\x80\x94 A EEFUGE FROM THE DIFFICULTIES OF \nMODAL ACTION. \n\nDr. Fuller is not singular among Baptist writers in seek- \ning refuge in " the act of immersion" from the inextricable \ndifficulties which invest the definite act theory. It is of \nprimary importance that we should understand the fact \nand the necessity for such retreat, as, also, the true nature \n\n\n\n54 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nof that place of refuge to whose protection they have made \nappeal. \n\nThat " immersion" is a shelter into which the friends \nof the definite act system have been driven from other \nuntenable positions, is made most certain by a glance at \nthe history of this controversy. \n\nA. R., the friend of Roger Williams, says nothing about \n" immersion." With him, " Baptizing is Dipping, and \nDipping is Baptizing." \n\nThe Baptist Confession of Faith, two centuries old, does \nnot speak of " immersion." It says : " The way or manner \nof dispensing this ordinance the Scriptures hold out to be \ndipping or plunging." \n\nBut Dr. Cox began to awake to a consciousness that \nthese definite acts, unaided, could not bear the burden \nlaid upon them. He, accordingly, without discarding \nthem, associates with them immerse. He declares that \n" dipping, plunging or immersing, is the unquestionable, \nsettled, and universally admitted primitive signification." \n\nBooth, under controversial pressure, is more outspoken, \ncomplaining that " plunge gives a ridiculous air to our \nsentiment and practice; immerse is usually adopted by us." \n\nDr. Conant says : " The Bible Society for which I have \nthe honor to labor, has adopted as its fundamental prin- \nciple the faithful translation of every word; the literal \nmeaning of this word, its true and only import, is to im- \nmerse" And yet, notwithstanding the lifting up of so just \nand noble a standard; and notwithstanding all the breadth \nand sharpness of this language, Dr. Cox does formally \ndefine that word whose "true and only import is to im- \nmerse" by dip and plunge. What can be that inexorable \nnecessity which thus constrains Baptist writers to write \ndown such univocal definitions only to turn the stylus and \nblot them out ? \n\n\n\nBAPTIST DOUBTS AS TO "THE DEFINITE ACT"\' THEOEY. \nThe embarrassment of our Baptist friends is strongly \n\n\n\n"THE DEFINITE ACT." 55 \n\nexhibited by the doubt suggested by some of their best \nwriters, whether, after all, they have got hold of the true \nmeaning of pairrfZiD, and by the earnest antagonism with \nwhich such suggestion has been repelled. \n\nDr. Gale uses this language: "Besides, the word pairefZw, \nperhaps, does not so necessarily express the action of put- \nting under water, as in general a thing\'s being in that \ncondition, no matter how it comes so, whether it is put \ninto the water, or the water comes over it, though, indeed, \nto put it into the water is the most natural way, and the \nmost common, and is, therefore, usually and pretty con- \nstant^, but it may be not necessarily implied." \n\nIt is obvious that this view, suggested, hesitatingly, by \nDr. Gale, revolutionizes the Baptist view as to the mean- \ning of ila-ri\'co. A word which "expresses the action of put- \nting under water," and a word which "expresses a thing\'s \nbeing in that condition" are separated from each other by \nessential difference of nature. They belong to different \nclasses of verbs. The one designates an act, the other a \ncondition. If any one should be disposed to say, that this \ndifference is of no moment as to this investigation, I would \nanswer: 1. Xo such judgment should be pronounced until \nthe distinction has been thoroughly traced to its results. \n2, That whether it should be found changing results or \nnot, it is a confession that the Baptist view of the character \nof the word was essentially erroneous. 3. Dr. Carson did \nnot regard the difference as unimportant, but lifts up an \nearnest cry of "treason!" immediately upon its enuncia- \ntion. He feels that the setting up, thus, of condition \nagainst act is to pierce the heart principle of the system \n\xe2\x80\x94 "act, and nothing but an act" \xe2\x80\x94 in the house of its \nfriends. He thus comes to the rescue; "Dr. Gale was \ninduced to suppose that it docs not so necessarily express \nthe action of putting underwater, as that the object is in \nthat state. But this is evidently inconsistent with the mean- \ning of the word." (p. 20.) \n\n""When this word is applied to an object lying under \nwater, but not actually dipped, the mode essentially de- \n\n\n\n56 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nnoted by it is as truly expressed as in any other instance \nof its occurrence." (p. 11.) \n\nDr. Carson\'s courage is admirable. He unflinchingly \naffirms mode, while admitting that there is none. \n\nThe courage of Dr. Cox is not so heroic. He yields to \nthat strong pressure which drew from Dr. Gale a qualified \nconfession of error as to the meaning of the word, and \nwith far less reserve concedes the untenableness of the \nposition that fiaarrgto expresses modal action or act at all, in \ncontradistinction from condition. This writer always pro- \nceeds on the assumption that ftdxTO) and paxviZw are absolute \nequivalents. In his interpretation of Daniel 4: 33, he at- \ntaches no importance to the fact that it is the former and \nnot the latter word which is used; but remarks: "The \nverb does not imply the manner in which the effect was \nproduced, but the effect itself; not the mode by which the \nbody of the king was wetted, but its condition." \n\nThis exposition is enforced by an appeal to other words, \ne.g., to hurt, to burn, to drown, none of which expresses modal \naction, but condition only. He then continues : " The state \nof the body is intended as having been drenched with dew; \nsignifying the condition of having been drenched; as being \nburnt with lightning, or in a conflagration, would mean \nthe state of being burnt, which resulted from the accident \nor visitation of fire." \n\nSuch views, casting utterly away the "perhaps" of Dr. \nGale, appeared to Dr. Carson so grievous, that he deter- \nmined "to settle the question though it should occupy some \npages." (p. 36.) He will not tolerate any departure from \nmodality \xe2\x80\x94 " If all the water in the ocean had fallen on him it \nwould not have been a literal immersion. The mode would \nstill be wanting." On this passage in Daniel, Dr. Gale hav- \ning remarked, " Hence it appears very clear, that both Dan- \niel and his translators designed to express the very great \ndew Nebuchadnezzar should be exposed to," Dr. Carson \npronounces what is so "very clear" to Dr. G. to be, in fact, \n"very absurd;" thus, "Dr. Gale absurdly supposes fidK-cto \nmeans to cover with water without reference to mode, and \n\n\n\ni^c/^^^^ j\xc2\xa3a+^ s -\xc2\xa3,\xc2\xab?<?, \n\n\n\n57 \n\nat the same time metaphorically alludes to dipping." Let \nall who revere the name of Carson take notice, that to \nmake a word which expresses condition, also to express \naction, is to act "absurdly." His opposition to Cox is no \nless uncompromising. To his remark \xe2\x80\x94 "a body exposed \nto Eastern dews would be as wet as (/"plunged into water," \nhe replies : " This leaves the mode unaccounted for. With- \nout doubt the verb here expresses mode as well as any- \nwhere else. To suppose the contrary gives up the point \nat issue, as far as mode is concerned." Again let it be \nnoted that, Carson being judge, to abandon the idea of \nmodal act in /Soared, is to abandon the Baptist system, \nwhich is founded in modality. \n\nFarther, in reply to the argument of Cox from the word \nhurt he says: "Nothing of manner is here expressed, and \nfor an obvious reason; nothing of manner is expressed in \nthe verb. But will Dr. Cox grant that this is the case with \nthe verb pd-rio f If he does, about what is he contending? \nBd-za) not only necessarily implies mode, but literally ex- \npresses nothing but mode. Mode is as much expressed \nhere as it is in the commission of our Lord to his apostles."\' \n\nDr. Carson clearly and boldly hazards his system on the \nmerits of modalism in action, rebuking the fainthearted- \nness and disloyalty of his associates. \n\nWith what consistency the Doctor binds fid-ru down, with \niron clamps, to modalism in Daniel, and yet refuses, on \nother occasions, to allow it to be restrained by so much as \na gossamer thread, others may determine; I exhibit the \nfacts. Dr. Gale had taken the ground in relation to dye- \ning with coloring matter, which Carson takes respecting \nwetting with dew; to wit, that the modal act of dipping \nwas necessarily involved. This position is thus sharply \ncriticized by his friend: " AVhat does the learned writer \nmean when he expresses a doubt of the propriety of this \nusage (?. e. fidm-to dropping mode)? Does he mean that \nsuch an extension of the meaning of words is in some \ndegree a trespass against the laws of language? But such \na usage is in strict accordance with the laws of language; \n\n\n\n58 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nand the history of a thousand words sanctions the prac- \ntice. Use is the sole arbiter of language; and whatever \nis agreeable to this authority stands justified beyond im- \npeachment. Bd-rw signifies to dye by sprinkling, as properly \nas by dipping, though originally it was confined to the \nlatter." \n\nDr. Carson is a study! When his friend Gale trembles \nat the consequences of admitting that fiaxru} may signify \nto dye, still more that it may signify to dye by sprinkling, \nand stoutly affirms that it has no such meaning, " but al- \nways implies and refers only to its true, natural significa- \ntion, to dip;" then, Carson interposes, declaring that /?\xc2\xab--\xc2\xab> \ncan mean, and does mean, to dye, nay, "to dye by sprinkling \nas properly as by dipping;" but when it is said that fid-rco \nmay mean to wet (to wet by sprinkled dew-drops), without \ndipping, then fid*\xe2\x84\xa2 not only " necessarily implies mode, \nbut literally expresses nothing but mode." How a word \nwhich "expresses nothing but mode" \xe2\x80\x94 to dip \xe2\x80\x94 can yet \nmean to dye by sprinkling, while it cannot mean (by reason \nof its modalism) to wet by sprinkling, is a mystery left un- \nsolved. "Use stands justified beyond impeachment," ex- \ncept a bill of indictment be drawn by Dr. Carson ! \n\n; But notwithstanding Dr. Carson\'s positiveness, and his \ndeclared purpose " to settle the question though it should \noccupy some pages," he has failed to carry conviction to \nthe minds of some of the ardent friends of the Baptist \nsystem. \n\nMorell abandons Carson and goes over to the side of \nGale and Cox, thus : " That the word patTrtiZm uniformly sig- \nnifies to dip I will not venture to assert, or undertake to \nprove. I believe, however, that it is pretty generally ad- \nmitted, on both sides, that the word does mean to dip; \nthat this is its generic meaning, and its most usual mean- \ning. But it appears quite evident that the word also bears \nthe sense of covering by superfusion. This is admitted by \nDr. Cox, who says, \' A person may be immersed by pour- \ning; but immersion is the being plunged into water, or \noverwhelmed by it. Was the water to ascend from the \n\n\n\n59 \n\nearth, it would still be baptism were the person wholly \ncovered by it.\' Thus far we surrender the question of im- \nmersion, and in doing so feel no small pleasure in finding \nourselves in such good company as that of Dr. Cox." (p. \n1G7.) \n\n"Will our Baptist friends turn the edge of their ridicule \nfrom others, and try its edge upon their friend Morell, as \nhe now affirms that "a person may be baptized, immersed, \nby pouring\'"? Is "clipping by pouring" (so long made \nthe butt of ridicule) any more facile of execution in the \nhand of a friend than of an opponent? Or, having ac- \ncepted from Carson, what was so long rejected when \nproffered b} 7 others, that fid-rto does not merely mean to \ndip, but to dye by sprinkling; will they accept from Morell, \nas simple verity, what was so ridiculously false when stated \nby opponents, to wit, that baptism is not dipping, that im- \nmersion is not dipping, and that baptism by pouring, or \nimmersion by pouring, is not "obscure phraseology em- \nployed for the purpose of covering up the absurdity of \ndipping by pouring" ? "Whether or no, we have a house \ndivided against itself; a general "surrender thus far of \nthe question of immersion." \n\nMorell is one of the fairest of opponents, and we will \nnot abuse his candor by perverting his surrender. He \ndoes not give up immersion, but he does give up dipping \nas necessary to it. But on sober second thought he will, \nno doubt, find that, having " surrendered" so much, he \nhas not surrendered enough. The admission that /?\xc2\xab~C^ \ndoes sometimes mean, not to dip, nor to put into an ele- \nment, but to immerse (that is, to secure intusposition with- \nout regard to act), does necessitate the conclusion that \nf\'o-r^u) does never mean a modal act \xe2\x80\x94 to dip. " Dipping by \nsprinkling," the performance of one modal act by a diverse \nmodal act, is not more patently absurd than that the same \nword should express a modal act and an immodal act; or \na modal act and a result, without designating any form \nof act by which that result was effected. \n\nBut let us pass on to a farther development of Baptist \n\n\n\n60 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ntestimony to the "one, clear, precise, and definite mean- \ning" of this word. \n\nDr. Fuller thus testifies : " A fourth case is presented \nby Pcedobaptist authors from Aristotle. It is produced to \nshow that fianriZw does not always denote the act of plung- \ning. My position is that fia-zXaj means to immerse. It \nmatters not how the immersion is effected." (p. 29.) \n\n" Suppose a man should lie in the baptistery while it is \nfilling. The pouring of the water would not be immer- \nsion, yet an immersion would take place, if he remained \nlong enough." (p. 31.) \n\nAgain we have the use of the word "immersion," as \nexpressing a thought wholly dissevered from the form of \nthe act inducing it, whether that form be pouring, or \nplunging, or sprinkling; for "if a man should lie in the \nbaptistery long enough," under the act of sprinkling, "an \nimmersion would take place." And yet it is the same \nwriter who speaks of "the* act of baptism being the act \nof immersion," which act of immersion is said to be " as \nplain as the sun in the heavens" ! \n\nWell, then, in the light of this dictum we must even \nbelieve that " the act of baptism" is the act of immersion, \nwhich act is that of plunging, or pouring, or sprinkling, \neither of which will " baptize the man who lies in the \nbaptistery long enough" ! \n\nWhether Dr. Fuller has added to the clearness, the \nsimplicity, and the precision of the one definite act of bap- \ntism by his " plain as the sun" position is quite doubtful. \n\nOne word as to the incongruous use of immerse and \nimmersion by Drs. Fuller and Carson. The latter says, \nfia-T^u has but one meaning; that meaning is one of mode, \nand nothing but mode, which mode is definitely expressed \nby dip \xe2\x80\x94 " dip or immerse." Now, these words must be \nused as the absolute equivalents of each other, or shame is \npoured over all the pages wherein they appear. But Dr. \nFuller does most expressly antagonize to clip and to plunge, \nby to immerse. He argumentatively rejects the definite \nact as not expressing the meaning of fia-KTLXu), and takes, \n\n\n\n"THE definite act." 61 \n\ninstead, to immerse, as destitute of all expression of definite \nact, proclaiming as Lis position, "It matters not how the \nimmersion is effected." "Immersion may be by pouring," \nbut pouring never produces dipping or plunging. \n\nThat such use of these terms is in utter contradiction, \nthe one .of the other, I need not say " is as plain as the sun \nin the heavens;" but it is important to say that no notice \nis ever given by Baptist writers of such contradictory \nusage; while the use, now in one sense and now in another, \nis met with everywhere, not only in different writers, but \nin the pages of the same writer. \n\nTo these writers \xe2\x80\x94 Gale, Cox, Morell,. Fuller, all in the \nfront rank of Baptist scholars \xe2\x80\x94 who have been constrained \nby the stress of testimony to abandon the long-cherished \ndefinite act theory y " mode and nothing but mode," must \nbe added the certainly not less eminent name of Conant. \n\nDr. Conant presents for embalmment,, in the " new ver- \nsion" of the holy Scriptures, neither the definite act to dip, \nnor the modal act to plunge, but the same word, " to im- \nmerse," in which Fuller and friends seek refuge when \ncompelled " thus far to surrender the question of immer- \nsion." The foreign origin of this word and its composite \ncharacter throws around it an indefinite penumbral char- \nacter, which is its qualifying merit as a retreat from the \nlong-honored, but no longer tenable, position of " one \nclear, precise, definite act through all Greek literature." \n\nHenceforth, our business is to dissipate this penumbra, \nand to show that when its outlines are sharply lighted up, \nthere is no more within it a place of refuge for the Baptist \ntheory, than has been found in the abandoned dip and \n\'plunge. \n\nBut the views of Dr. Conant \xe2\x80\x94 the latest, the most elab- \norate, as well as every way qualified investigator of this \nsubject \xe2\x80\x94 demand special consideration. \n\n\n\n62 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n"THE MEANING OE BAimza." \nT. J. Conant, D.D., American Bible Union. New York, 1860. \n\nToo much praise cannot be accorded to Prof. Conant \nlor the exhaustive labor which he has bestowed upon the \ncollection and accurate exhibition of all passages in which \n\xc2\xa7ar,xi%ot is found. It gives me great pleasure to acknowl- \nedge my indebtedness to him for quite a number of pas- \nsages, after having devoted the leisure intervals of some \nyears to securing such a collection; as, also, for the cor- \nrection of some errors of quotation. Indeed, so well sat- \nisfied have I been of the accuracy of Dr. Conant, and \noftentimes of the greater accessibility of the editions re- \nferred to by him, that I have, throughout, conformed my \nquotations and references to his, on a review; this inquiry \nhaving been, substantially, completed before meeting with \nhis treatise. \n\nDr. Conant has not been satisfied with the mere collec- \ntion of materials, but has made them the subject of very \nelaborate study. He has felt that a large responsibility \nwas resting upon him, and he spared no pains to acquit \nhimself well under it. And he has done so. None will \nquestion the honesty of his purpose, the fulness of his \nlabor, or the adequacy of his scholarship, however much \nthey may differ from him in some of his views. \n\nThe results reached generally by Prof. Conant may be \naccepted as sufficiently correct for all ordinary purposes \nof language, while, with a special application to the Baptist \nsystem and its sharp demands, their accuracy may be ques- \ntioned and their essential modification be demanded. \n\nHIS ACCORD WITH THE BAPTIST THEORY. \n\nThe orthodox Baptist view of the meaning of pa-riZa), \nundoubtedly, is that it expresses a clear, precise, and def- \ninite act; which act has been expressed in a thousand \ntreatises, and in every ritual service, by the word dip, \nthrough more than two hundred years. \n\n\n\nACCORD WITH THE BAPTIST THEORY. 63 \n\nDr. Conant seems to adopt the theory that this word has \nbut one meaning-, and that that meaning is an act, a def- \ninite act. This is his language : \n\n".This word is rendered into English \xe2\x80\x94 the translation \nexpresses its true and only import." " The word pa\xe2\x80\x94l\'io, \nduring the whole existence of the Greek as a spoken \nlanguage, had a perfectly defined and unvarying import." \nM The constant usage of Greek writers, and the only rec- \nognized meaning of the word." " The simple, distinct, \nand corporeal sense to which the word was appropriated \nby unvarying usage." \n\nThis is explicit. The language employed designating \nthis meaning as an act, a definite act, would seem to be not \nless so. Take the following : \n\n" The Greek word fiaxrtZetv expresses nothing more than \nthe act of immersion." " This act is performed on the \nassenting believer \xe2\x80\x94 and this distinguishes it from all other \nacts of life \xe2\x80\x94 the act expressed by the same word is a super- \nstitious Pharisaic ceremony \xe2\x80\x94 the act designated by the \nword in all these cases is the same." " The act which it \ndescribes was chosen for its adaptation to set forth by \nlively symbolism the ground thought of Christianity.\'\' \n" The name of the element in which the act it expresses took \nplace." " The other acts with which it is compared in the \nNew Testament." " The daily and hourly repetition of \nthe act in common life which it described." \n\nCan language like this be read with any other feeling \nthan that Dr. Conant casts in his lot with those who \ndeclare that, " one meaning, a clear, precise, and definite act \nreigns through all Greek literature?" This conclusion is \nconfirmed by more full and explanatory statement; \xe2\x80\x94 "with \nthe preposition into before the name of the clement into \nwhich an object is plunged or immersed expressing fully \nthe act of passing from one clement into another." "The \nverb fia-rt\'Cio, immergo, has, in fact, but one sole acceptation. \nIt signifies literally and always to plunge." This last pas- \nsage is a quotation (with approval) from another writer. \n\nWe are, then, taught by Dr. Conant that flami\'w has but \n\n\n\n64 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\none meaning, that that meaning is an expressed act, a \ndefinite act characterized by passing from one medium \ninto another, and it is distinctively represented by plunge. \n\nThis is all clear and consistent, whether correct or not. \nIt has not merely the merit of self-consistence, but is in \nperfect harmony with the ancient and severe definition, \n" Baptizing is dipping, and dipping is baptizing." It \naccords, also, with the more modern exposition of Dr. \nCarson, " dip, and nothing but dip," maintained, theoreti- \ncally, with cast-iron inflexibility: as, also, with the general \nstream of Baptist utterance. \n\nBut this is not all which Dr. Conant says as to the \nmeaning of this word, and what he says more mars this \nbeautiful simplicity of definition, and introduces a note \nof irreconcilable discord. Like every other Baptist writer \nwho has attempted to maintain modal action in the face \nof the facts of usage, Prof. Conant fails to be self-con- \nsistent in his statements. \n\nHe does not distinctly avow a purpose to carry a definite \nact through every case of usage, and therefore recognize \nthe obligation, with Dr. Carson, by some catechrestical \ndistortion to shape facts after such model; but apparently \nfeels at liberty to speak, as circumstances require, in con- \nformity with the modal action of Carson, or the state and \ncondition of Cox; all in the name of one, clear, definite, \nand unchanging meaning. \n\nThe evidence of this is found in language like the fol- \nlowing : \n\nHIS WANT OF ACCORD. \n\n" The word PortI\'siv^ which, by constant usage, expressed \nan entire submersion of the object." " A sense founded \non the idea of total submergence, as in floods of sorrow." \n" Among the several words, all agreeing in the essential \nidea of total submergence, by which fio.-x-i*ziv may be ex- \npressed in English, the word immerse has been selected \nfor use in this revision." "We speak of a man as im- \nmersed in calamities, &c, always with the idea of totality, \n\n\n\nWANT OF ACCORD. 65 \n\nof being wholly under the dominion of these states or \ninfluences ... it suggests the clear image of the act on \nwhich all are founded." \n\nThese statements represent the meaning of par^u) as \nturning wholly upon a state or condition, namely, of" entire \nsubmersion," while we were previously told that this \nmeaning was concentred in an act. These two views do \nnot coincide in one clear and precise meaning, but are \nessentially diverse and irreconcilable. The same word can- \nnot express both act and condition, although act and con- \ndition may be inseparably united in one word. But in \nsuch case, act or condition must immediately control the \nword, and hold the other in subordination; both cannot \nbe equally expressed. To plunge expresses directly the \nnature of the act which may carry its object into and \nunder water; while to swamp expresses nothing, directly, \nof the nature of the act which carries its object under \nwater, but gives expression to the condition effected, what- \never may have been the nature of the act. \n\nIt is of the first importance that these differences should \nnot be lost sight of in determining with critical accuracy \nthe meaning of a word, and above all in tracing out the \ndevelopment of a word. It would be a forlorn hope to \nexpect any just issue in the investigation of the usage of a \nword expressive of condition by a person whose mind was \nfull of the idea that it was a word expressive of some \naction. Plunge has a development growing out of its \npeculiarities as an act; swamp, one which is based on \ncondition. " I plunge into misfortune;" " I am swamped \nby misfortune;" express ideas essentially diverse. The \nstructure of language is controlled by such differences. \n"I plunge into misfortune;" " misfortune swamps me;" \nare diversities of phraseology not accidental, but growing \nout of the essential diversity of the terms. Plunge ex- \npresses the course of action by which misfortune is reached. \nSwamp says nothing of this. As plunge and swamp should \nnot be confounded, so, for like reason, act and condition \nshould never be confounded ; nor should one word be \n\n\n\n66 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ntreated as though it expressed both act and condition, or \nat one time act, and at another time condition. This \nconfusion vitiates Dr. Conant\'s treatise. \n\nSome Baptist writers have felt, and confessed the im- \npracticability of carrying pa^r^io through its usage as ex- \npressing an act; but in making this confession they still \ndoubly failed of the truth : 1. In not abandoning the idea \nthat paucrCCw ever expresses a definite act ; and, 2. In not \nprosecuting the inquiry into the meaning of this word \nunder the acknowledgment that its meaning centred in \ncondition. \n\nA portion of these writers met the difficulty by allowing \nthe word at one time to mean act, and at another time to \nmean condition, a mending of their error quite inadmis- \nsible; while others chose a word, sufficiently vague, to slur \nover the difficulty. Dr. Con ant appears to combine the \nvarious views and policies of those who have gone before \nhim. He adopts the one meaning, the act, condition, and \nimmerse, which is of such facile use now, to express an act, \nand now, to express condition. \n\nDr. Conant endeavors to lay a basis for appeal both to \nact and condition, by making both prominent in the mean- \ning which he assigns to the word. Thus he says: " The \nground idea expressed by the word, is, to put into or under \nwater (or other penetrable substance), so as to immerse or \nsubmerge." \n\nBy this language, (kacriZw is represented as expressing \nboth an act and a condition resulting from that act. "No \nobjection can be made to the idea of an act which results \nin effecting a condition; but it is objectionable to make a \nword to distinctively represent both act and condition. \n\nIt may be noted that immerse and submerge, in this \npassage, are both used to express, distinctively, condition \nand not act. The same is true of the use of the same \nwords in the following passage: "The object immersed or \nsubmerged is represented as being plunged, or as sinking \ndown into the ingulfing fluid, or the immersing element \noverflowing, and thus ingulfing the object." "Immersed," \n\n\n\nWANT OF ACCORD. 67 \n\n"submerged," "immersing," represent condition; it is im- \npossible to substitute for them words expressive of action; \nthe act is performed by " plunging" and " sinking," or \n" overflowing." But if fta-r^w does, by its proper force, \nexpress the act which belongs to plunge, or to sink, or to \noverflow, then, unless one and the same thing can be an- \nother and a diverse thing, it cannot express the condition \nwhich belongs to immerse and submerge, or "ingulf" here \nused as the equivalent of immerse. \n\nBut these words are used, very unallowably, to express \nact as well as condition. Ba-rt\'io, " with the preposition \ninto before the name of the element into which an object \nis plunged or immersed, expresses fully the act of passing \nfrom one element into another." Here "immerse" is used \nto express, coequally with plunge, " the act of passing from \none element into another;" vvhile before it was used to \nexpress condition resultant from the act of plunging. \n\nDr. Conant never makes such double and impossible \nuse of i^langc; why does he seek to make such, equally \nunallowable, use of immerse? \n\nWhile freely acknowledging that " into," used as sug- \ngested, does indicate "an act passing from one element \ninto another;" it is by no means admitted that such use \nwith /Sa-rcTw shows that such act is to be found in that \nword. "Words which of themselves express no movement \nmay, still, be found with into, the word necessary to the \nmovement being supplied. Such usage is not infrequent; \nand the explanation given meets with general acceptance. \n\nThat pa\xe2\x80\x94fCw docs not express any definite movement, \nnor any independent movement whatever, " causing its \nobject to pass from one medium into another," is conclu- \nsively shown by the use of this word in cases where no \nmovement of any kind in the object takes place. \n\nThe sea-coast is baptized by the rising tide; but there \nis no act exercised upon it inducing a movement of the \ncoast, "causing it to pass from one medium into another." \n\nSuch usage shook the faith of Gale in the notion of \nmovement as inherent in this word, and wholly overthrew \n\n\n\n68 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthat of Cox, wHIe all the billows of the sea could not \nmove that of Carson a hair r s breadth. He boldly affirmed \nthat movement was as much expressed hy the word in such \neases, when no movement took place, as when movement \ndid take place ; and to admit otherwise was to give up the \nissue. He chicled his friends sharply for their defection, \nand endeavored to encourage them and sustain himself by \nan appeal to some figure of speech. Dr. Carson, no doubt, \nfully convinced himself that when an object was baptized \nwithout being moved, that still it was said to be moved \nbecause it was said to be baptized; and baptized " has but \none meaning through all Greek literature," "expressing \nan act, clear, precise, definite," making its object "to pass \nfrom one medium into another." His reasoning, however, \nhas failed to convince, I will not say his opponents, but \nhis friends; for no Baptist writer, following him, has ven- \ntured to stand upon the sea-coast and bid the inrolling \nbillow to cease its movement until "the coast" should \ncome to it and be lawfully baptized; "passing out of one \nmedium into another." \n\nDr. Carson,. however, is right when he takes the ground \nthat ^aTrrrCa*, if it ever expresses an act of movement must \nalways express such act; and if such meaning be aban- \ndoned in one case,, it must be abandoned in all. Morell \ncannot sayr "It means, most usually, to dip, while it \nappears quite evident that it, also, means to cover by \nsuperfusion." So word can express "usually to dip," and \nunusually " to superfuse." If it expresses the one, it never \ndoes or can express the other; and if, in the usage of any \nword, these and like terms meet together, they must stand \non the same basis; namely, that the word means one as \nmuch as the other, in fact, means neither. The fact of \nbaptism hj superfusion is admitted by Baptist writers. \nSome saying that baptism by superfusion means baptism \nby dipping; while others admit the fact, but decline to \nwork it out to its conclusions, and hold on to a position \nwhich the admission subverts, namely, "one meaning, a \ndefinite act, through all Greek literature." \n\n\n\nWANT OF ACCORD. 69 \n\nDr. Conant is involved in this inextricable embarrass- \nment when he attempts to sustain " one meaning, express- \ning fully the act of passing from one element into another," \nwhile he also says: "The object is represented as being \nplunged or as sinking down into the ingulfing fluid, or the \nimmersing element overflows, and thus ingulfs the object." \n\nIf faxriZw, of its own proper force, ever plunges or sinks \nits object, then it never overflows it; and if it ever over- \nflows it, then it never plunges or sinks it; if it does, of its \nown proper force, distinctively plunge and sink and over- \nflow its object, then it embodies a power which can work \nphilological miracles; but if plunge, and sink, and over- \nflow meet on equal terms in expounding the usage of this \nword, then Dr. Conant errs when he describes this word \nas representing an "act passing from one element into \nanother," for such act cannot be represented by these \nseveral and diverse terms. \n\n\n\nHIS FORMAL DEFINITION. \n\n" The word Baptizein, during the whole existence of the \nGreek as a spoken language, had a perfectly defined and \nunvarying import. In its literal use it meant, as has been \nshown, to put entirely into or under a liquid, or other \npenetrable substance, generally water, so that the object \nwas wholly covered by the inclosing element. By analogy, \nit expressed the coming into a new state of life or experience, \nin which one was, as it were, inclosed and swallowed up, \nso that, temporarily or permanently, he belonged wholly \nto it." \n\nIn this definition it is noteworthy that act, which has, \nheretofore, in Baptist writings, reigned with such suprem- \nacy, becomes, as to form, an absolutely vanishing quantity; \nand in its undefined obscurity exhausts itself in effecting \na well-defined condition, which is placed in high relief in \nthe foreground as the grand idea. In this, Dr. Conant has \nmade decided advance on his predecessors. \n\nIt, also, claims especial attention as a novelty from a \n\n\n\n70 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nBaptist writer, that a second very remarkable meaning is \nassigned to this word, which, as we have been so long \ntold, possessed a solitary grandeur, in that, through ages, \nit never swerved from the idea of putting into water. It \nis none the less remarkable, because it appears, now, for \nthe first time, as the meaning of this word, and is only \nintroduced to our notice to be withdrawn without again \nreappearing. \n\nIt may, however, be made the occasion of again remark- \ning how absolutely act is discarded as an element of value \nin determining the meaning of paxriZio. We are told that \nthis secondary meaning comes "by analogy." Well, there \nare but two elements, act and condition, whereon the \nanalogy can rest. On which does it rest ? " Coming into \na new state of life or experience, so as to be inclosed and \nswallowed up, and belong wholly to it." Where is the \nanalogy to act, definite or indefinite, plunge, dip, or, put \ninto ? Where is the likeness to plunging, or dipping, or \nputting, in " coming into a new state" f Are we to make \na point of " coming into" a moral state with putting into \nwater ? Well, let us know what is this quo modo, and let \nus see what is the admirable tracery of the analogy. Until \nthis is done, we shall rest content with such analogy as \nmay be found between the condition of envelopment by a \nphysical element and the condition of that moral state, \nwherein those who enter it are wholly subject to its con- \ntrol. Others may fill up the picture, at leisure, showing \nthe analogy between the act of putting into and the modus \noperandi of moral influence in inducing this "new state of \nlife." \n\nIn this definition by the use of " put" \xe2\x80\x94 " put into or \nunder" \xe2\x80\x94 Dr. Conant gives a greater breadth and freedom \nto paxriZa) than any of his friends who have preceded him. \nThey have insisted that it meant to dip, to plunge, and \nnothing else. Dr. Conant says, it no more means to dip, \nto plunge, than does "to put;" that is, it means no such \nthing. These, and a host of other words, may act as \nservitors fulfilling the behests of /Sarrt\'Cw, while they no \n\n\n\nSECOND DEFINITION. 71 \n\nmore, in their individuality, represent the meaning of that \nword than does the swelling frog the stately ox. Ba-rOZw \nexercises a sovereignty over a multitude of words expres- \nsive of action; but no one of its subjects can, by any \namount of puffing, be made meet to till the place of its \nsovereign. Indeed, there is no light thrown by this word, \nof itself, upon the act by which, in any given case, its de- \nmand may be met. You might as well attempt to learn \nfrom it the name of the man in the moon, as to seek to \nlearn from it the style and title of the act which performs \na baptism. If any one doubts this, let him tell me, when \nI inform him that a certain Greek was baptized in the days \nof Plato, what was the act by which the baptism was \neffected ? When a truthful answer, gathered from pa-rt\'w, \nshall be returned to this question, the respondent may \nboldly approach the sphynx sure of resolving every \n\n\n\nenigma. \n\n\n\nHIS SECOND DEFINITION. \n\n\n\nA more fully developed definition. is furnished, else- \nwhere, as follows : \n\n"From the preceding examples, it appears that the \nground idea expressed by this word is, to -put into or toyier \nwater (or other penetrable substance) so as entirely to im- \nmerse or submerge; that this act is alwa\\>s expressed in the \nliteral application of the word, and is the basis of its \nmetaphorical use. This ground idea is expressed in Eng- \nlish, in the various connections where the word occurs, by \nthe terms (synonymous in this ground element), to immerse, \nimmerge, submerge, to dip, to plunge, to imbathe, to whelm." \n\nAnd on another page we have the meaning more briefly \nand formally stated. "Baptizein: To immerse, immerge, \nsubmerge, to dip, to plunge, to imbathe, to whelm." \n\nA first thought which occurs, on reading such expo- \nsition, is this: The translation of ^ojrreCw, after all, does not \nappear to be so very easy. It has been said that the sug- \ngestion that there was any difficulty in the translation of \nthis word in the English Bible was nothing more than a \n\n\n\n72 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n"pretence." "The meaning of the word was clear, def- \ninite, always the same, and one of the easiest words to \ntranslate." Now for the proof. Dr. Conant has spent \nyears in the study of this word. What translation does \nhe give us of it? Why, on Baptist principles, just none \nat all. Our Baptist friends are bound, by all their un- \nmeasured reproof of us, and by all their equally unmeasured \nclaims of most certain knowledge for themselves, to give \nus an English word which shall sharply, squarely, and \n" on all fours" represent this Greek term. Now, what \nBaptist writer furnishes us with such a word ? Does Dr. \nConant ? Does he profess to do it? Is it possible for him, \non his own showing, to do it ? These questions must be \nanswered in the negative. \n\nWe are told that this word " expresses putting into or \nputting under, immersing or submerging." Does Dr. \nConant mean by this language that the word means either \nto put into or to put under? but he cannot tell which. Or, \nthat sometimes it means the one and sometimes the other; \nnot being fixed in its meaning? Or, that it means both; \nthere being no difference between " into" and " under" ? \nOr, that it means, exactly, neither; but some third thing? \nSurely we are left quite in the dark as to any definite idea \nof the action expressed by this word. " To put," gives \nno definite information, for it has sixty-seven variations \nof usage according to Webster, and sixty-seven more, \nperhaps, might be added. No valuable aid is found in \n" put into," " put under " for these terms are very far from \nagreeing in one. It is just because they differ that they \nare used. If the " one, clear, definite" idea is not found \nin this part of the definition, is it found in those seven \ndefining terms which are added? \n\nIf so, is it equally in each ? This cannot be. If one \nword can be found in English the absolute equivalent of \nfiaTTTtZu), there can hardly be found seven ! If there is one \nsuch word in this collection, which is it? Is it the first, \n" immerse" ? If so, then why the other six? If the second, \n"immerge" differs from "immerse," and this is the repre- \n\n\n\nSECOND DEFINITION. 73 \n\nsentative word; then, so far, "immerse" fails, and must be \nrejected. The third (" submerge") cannot bear scrutiny if \nthe first is the standard. The same is true of the fourth, \n" to dip;" and the fifth, " to plunge ;" and the sixth, " to \nimbathe;" and the seventh, "to whehn;" each of which, \nhas its own peculiarities of character distinguishing it \nfrom " immerse," and, therefore, rendering it incapable \nof representing the Greek word, if such representation is \nmade by immerse. The Baptist world has demanded the \nphilological "pound of flesh," and has pledged itself, with- \nout fail, to dissect it from the English language. We have \nnothing to say against the rightfulness of the demand; but, \nremember, when weighed over against fta-rtZv, it must be \nnothing more, nothing less. \n\nBut Dr. Conant admits that each of these terms differs \nfrom its fellows. Why, then, use them ? Why, because \nthey agree in some "common ground idea." What is the \nnature of that "ground idea"? Is it an act or a condi- \ntion ? Rot an act, because, manifestly, immerse and sub- \nmerge, plunge and whelm, have no sucb bond of union. \nAnd the character of the act becomes a matter of supreme \nindifference. \n\nIs the "ground idea" found in condition \xe2\x80\x94 "entirely \ncovered" ? Then, 1. Dr. Conant repudiates Baptist argu- \nmentation of two centuries, which has labored to prove \nthat the idea involved was an act, absolute^ modal, to \nchange which was to subvert the truth. 2. What is the \nEnglish word which represents this " ground idea" with- \nout expressing any modal action? \n\nWe have a description of the idea of iSa-z^aj, as Dr. \nConant understands it, in which description all special \nform and force of act is rejected, and power to effect con- \ndition, only is demanded; which idea is not translated into \nany one word, but is distributed among seven, not one of \nwhich exhibits, simply and only, this idea. \n\nBut while Dr. Conant is compelled to abandon, on ex- \namination of his exposition, all idea of a form of act enter- \ning into and controlling the idea of fia-r^aj, still he clings \n\n\n\n74 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nto the idea, so long cherished, of an act, a movement, a \nforce, as belonging to and controlling the usage of this \nword. Thus he says : " This act is always expressed in \nthe literal application of the word, and is the basis of its \nmetaphorical use." * \n\nIt is an error, and a very serious one, to say that " act is \nalways expressed" by this word, in contradistinction from \ncondition. It cannot be said, properly, ever thus to express \nan act. This is manifest from the seven words already \nquoted, which express diversity and contrariety of action, \nbut which are given as expositors of the same word. Of \ncourse they cannot be exponential of that in which they \ndiffer. Therefore, they cannot expound the action in pan- \nt[\xc2\xa3&. Dip and plunge do, strictly, express acts, and their \nusage turns, wholly, on the character of those acts; but \nthis is in nowise true of the word under consideration. \nThe acts by which baptism may be effected are almost \nendless, both as to form and force. The same reason \nwhich gives the seven words, referred to, as the meaning \nsought for, would justify the addition of .seven more- -to \nduck, to souse, to steep, to sink, to swamp, to ingulf, to \nswallow up ; or seven times seven, which could be readily \nfurnished, each putting its object "into or under" the \nwater. Dr. Conant gives, in his translations, two score \nacts by which baptism was effected. 1, To assault; 2, to \nlet fall; 3, to flow; 4, to weigh clown; 5, to walk; 6, to \npierce ; 7, to hurl down ; 8, to march ; 9, to rush clown ; \n10, to surround; 11, to press clown ; 12, to rise above; 13, \nto dip ; 14, to submerge ; 15, to thrust; 16, to blow; 17, to \nrush down; 18, to strike; 19, to proceed; 20, to sink; \n21, to immerge; 22, to imbathe; 23, to plunge; 24, to \nlower down; 25, to immerse; 26, to come on; 27, to over- \nturn ; 28, to boil up; 29, to flood; 30, to whelm ; 31, to let \ndown; 32, to enter in; 33, to pour; 34, to souse; 35, to \nbring down; 36, to depress; 37, to steep; 38, to drench; \n39, to play the dipping match ; 40, to duck. Is each act, \nseverally expressed by these forty words, a facsimile of \npa-T&o> f According to the definition, " put into, under, its \n\n\n\nSECOND DEFINITION. 75 \n\nobject, entirely," it does so; but if so, then it must, among \nwords of action, stand forth a Briarean monster, or a Pro- \ntean prodigy. Certainly no act of forty fold form " is \nalways expressed in the literal application of the word." \n\nOther objections lie against the words selected (without \ngood reason from a host of others), as the representative \nwords. "We are told that \n\n" Ba-ziXu) means \xe2\x80\x94 To immerse, immerge, submerge, to \ndip, to plunge, to imbathe, to whelm." \n\n"We object to the employment of words compounded \nwith prepositions, to represent words which have no such \ncomposition. \n\nAs the Greeks use both efi-Pairr%a> } and xaza-iSa-z^w, the \ntranslation of which would, property, be with a compound \nword (but with which we have nothing to do), why intro- \nduce the distinctive peculiarity of these words into the \ntranslation of famiM The composite character of these \ndefining words must be rejected as inconsiderately, I would \nby no means say surreptitiously, introduced. \n\nWe would, then, have : merse, merge, dip, plunge, \nbathe, whelm. \n\nOf these terms, "merge" must be set aside as having an \nalmost exclusive, and somewhat peculiar, metaphorical use \nin our language. \n\n"Dip" must be rejected on its merits. The statement \nof Carson, that \xe2\x80\xa2" dip is the meaning, and the only meaning, \nof this word through all Greek literature," is met by the \nequally broad and contradictory statement, that it never, \nthrough all Greek literature, has the meaning to dip. \n\nThe notion that (ia-T^io means to dip was never derived \nfrom a study of the usage of this word, but was borrowed \nfrom 0airra\xc2\xbb, with which it was long absolutely identified, \nand with which it is still identified by Baptist writers, so \nfar as the primary meaning is concerned. For such iden- \ntification there never was the semblance of a reason. In \nusage, these words are as nearly oppositcs of each other as \nthey well could be. I do not now enter upon any justifi- \ncation of this position. My business, now, is to hear what \n\n\n\n76 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nBaptist writers have to say, and to suggest difficulties \nwhich appear on the surface of things. Hereafter I will \nendeavor to make good the position that dip, the primary \nmeaning of fid-no, no more belongs to pa-r^w than does dye, \nits secondary meaning. \n\n"We strike out dip, then, from Dr. Conant\'s list of repre- \nsentative words, as having no right to be there. \n\n" Plunge," also, must be rejected on its merits. Its lack \nof merit, however, is quite different, in important respects, \nfrom dip. This latter word has a defect of nature which \nrenders it essentially unfit to fulfil the demands of pannZat. \nThis is not the case with the former word. It is entirely \ncompetent to fulfil the demands of the Greek word ; but \nit is not the more, on that account, an exposition, in its \nindividuality, of the value of /3a-n\'!>. It might as well \nbe said that to hinder means, to tie a hundred weight to a \nman\'s foot. Most assuredly this would prove a hindrance; \nbut though the demand of " hinder" may be thus met, \nshall we say that to hinder means, " to tie a hundred weight \nto a man\'s foot" ? To do so would be just as rational as \nto say that /3a-r& means to plunge, because it can, under \ncertain circumstances, meet its demands. To plunge ex- \npresses a distinctive act, with strongly marked characteris- \ntics, which has no expression whatever in the Greek word. \nAnd since to attribute to it such a meaning tends to foster \nthe erroneous idea that it belongs to that class of verbs, \nwe exclude plunge from the seven defining words. \n\n" To bathe" has no claim whatever to be used to express \nthe meaning of the Greek word, either as to act or con- \ndition. And as it is employed but once by Dr. Conant, if \nI remember rightly, and in its compound form \xe2\x80\x94 zm-bathe \xe2\x80\x94 \nhe will not feel that its erasure brings much loss with it. \n\n" To whelm" does not express any specific fprm of act \nany more than does to cover, and, in so far, is calculated to \nact as a representative word. But it does express the idea \nof the whelming element coming over its object, and in \nthis fails to find any correspondence in the Greek word. \nThat word cordially accepts such mode of fulfilling its \n\n\n\nMETAPnORICAL USE. 77 \n\nbehests, but neither enjoins nor expresses it. Its breadth \nis greater. It has no regard to form of action. It contem- \nplates, exclusively, condition \xe2\x80\x94 intusposition \xe2\x80\x94 and what- \never act will accomplish this it accepts as a true and loyal \nservitor, one as truly as the other, whatever may be their \ndiversities. It refuses, with absolute denial, to be bound \nto any, whether labelled with " into," or " under," or \n" over." \n\nWhelm 7 in certain respects, serves very admirably as an \ninterpretative word. I would, therefore, allow the first, \n(stripped of its preposition,) and the last of "the seven" \nto stand as valuable helps, with proper explanation, to \nexpound the Greek word. \n\nMETAPHORICAL USE. \n\nThe metaphorical or secondary use of fiaxrKia claims our \nspecial attention. It is all-essential to a proper under- \nstanding of the word. Some call this use figurative. I \ndo not like the term. It is suggestive to most persons of \nsomething unreal, shadowy, fanciful. This is far from \nbeing the case in the present instance. Nor is it so do- \npendent on the literal physical use as some would have us \nbelieve. This usage is as frequent, well-nigh if not quite, \nin classic writings as is the primary. And while freely \nconfessing that the secondary use does proceed from and \ndraw its meaning from the primary use, we do emphati- \ncally deny that that meaning is merely an allusive one; we \nclaim that it has, and does directly suggest a meaning of \nits own, which excludes the idea of physical investiture. \nDr. Conant traces this usage to an act. Thus, again, \nshowing the control held by the idea that the word ex- \npressed an act, as does dip or plunge, which idea is a con- \nstant source of misconception and improper use of lan- \nguage. \n\nHe says: "This act is always expressed in the literal \napplication of the word, and is the basis of its metaphor- \nical uses." (p. 59.) \n\n\n\n78 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\xe2\x96\xa0 \n\n" Iii the metaphorical application of the word, both \ncases" (plunging and overflowing) " are recognized as the \nground of this usage." (p. 60.) \n\n" The ground idea is preserved in the several metaphori- \ncal uses of the word." " The idea of a total submergence \nlies at the basis of the\xc2\xa3e metaphorical uses." (p. 61.) \n\n" In the metaphorical sense it is often used absolutely, \nmeaning to whelm in (or with) ruin, troubles, &c." (p. 61.) \n\n"We speak of a man as immersed in calamities, &c, \nalways with the idea of totality, of being wholly under the \ndominion of these states- or influence; it suggests the clear \nimage of the act on which they all are founded." (p. 107.) \n\nThe metaphorical use of this word is dependent in no- \nwise on any form of act. It is no more dependent on dip- \nping, plunging, sinking, as forms of acts, than it is de- \npendent on walking, throwing, falling. \n\n~Nor does this usage turn on the picturing of an object \nas in a state of physical immersion, submersion, or en- \nvelopment. Cases of such picturing may, doubtless, be \nfound; but they are not properly arranged under this head \nof metaphorical use ; they belong to what is more properly \ndesignated as figure-picturing. The secondary or meta- \nphorical use of words does not draw pictures of primary \nuse, but takes some leading thought pertaining to it, and \nmakes an application of it as the case plainly indicates. \nSuch, at least, we claim for fact in this case. In every case \nof physical envelopment there is an opportunity for the \ninvesting element to exercise its influence over the object \nin the highest degree; what the nature of that influence \nwill be depends upon the element and the object. \n\nThere is nothing more obviously natural than that the \nword which is expressive of such envelopment should be \ntaken, not merely to draw physical pictures, but to repre- \nsent, directly, that constantly needed thought of controlling \ninfluence. This, we say, has been done in the case of this \nword, and that such is its true metaphorical or secondary \nuse. Hence a baptism can be effected by anything, of \nwhatever dimensions, or of whatever nature, physical or \n\n\n\nMETAPHORICAL USE. 79 \n\n\xc2\xbb \n\nunphysical, which is capable of exercising a controlling \ninfluence over its object, thus bringing it into a new con- \ndition. \n\nIt was on this ground that the Greeks represented a \nbaptism to be effected by a cup of wine, by perplexing \nquestions, and by a few drops of an opiate. "Whether \nthese, or such like things, baptize by dipping, or plunging, \nor sinking, or overflowing, may be safely left to the deter- \nmination of common sense. It will tax the powers of a \nvery lively imagination to show, how an embarrassing \nquestion lets loose a water-flood into which the bewildered \nrespondent is plunged, or by which he is overflowed. \n\nBut give what explanation you will, the stubborn fact, \nthe truly important thing, remains; that the Greeks daily \neffected baptisms by a draught of wine, by a bewildering \nquestion, and by droppings from an opiate. Accumulate \naround these baptisms metaphor, figure, picture, and what \nnot, I make my argument with finger pointed to the cup, \nthe question, and the opiate drop, and say, the old Greeks \nbaptized, through a thousand years, by such things as these! \n\nDr. Conant pronounces a just critical judgment when he \nsays of this class of baptisms, they exhibit those receiving \nthem as " wholly under the dominion of these states or \ninfluences;" but when he proceeds to add, "they sug- \ngest the clear image of the act on which they all are \nfounded," we take exception : 1. To the introduction of \n"the image of the act." No such suggestion can be made, \nfor the very good reason that there is no such "the act" to \nbe " imaged." The acts by which these, and all other bap- \ntisms, are effected are endlessly diverse, and, therefore, \ncannot have " the image" reflected in any one word. The \nimage of the act of dipping is one thing; the image of the \nact of plunging is another thing; the image of the act of \nsinking is yet another; and the image of the act of flow- \ning is still another. Each of these words has a metaphor- \nical or secondary use peculiar to itself and incapable of \ninterchange ; such use may, in each several case, suggest \n"the image of the act" appropriate to itself, but no word \n\n\n\n80 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ncan suggest at the same time, or equally, or at all, the \nseveral distinctive acts of dipping, plunging, sinking, flow- \ning. But while these modes have "the image of an act" \nto suggest, fiaTZTga) has none; for the reason that neither in \nprimary nor in secondary use has it anything whatever, as \nto its meaning, to do with the form of an act. This word \ndemands for its ohject condition, and condition solely; it \nsays nothing, and it cares nothing for dipping, plunging, \nsinking, flowing, pouring, provided only that it is com- \npetent to fulfil the demanded condition. This it insists \nupon. \n\nIf Dr. Conant will erase " the image of the act" (aban- \ndoning the idea that paxr^ expresses the form of an act, \nand accepting the idea of condition), and will say that the \nmetaphorical or secondary use indicates and expresses that \nthe baptized person is "wholly under the dominion of the \nstate or influence" appropriate to the case; which meaning \n(not image) is clearly traceable to the primary use, wherein \nan object is encompassed by a physical element, and thus \nwholly subject to its influence, then, my objection is at an \nend, and Baptist argumentation, as to the character of this \nw T ord, is abandoned by Dr. Conant. \n\nIt remains to be seen whether such abandonment of the \ncharacter so long attributed to this word, will necessitate \nthe abandonment of their entire system or not. They \nmust, at least, look over the field from a new stand-point, \nto see whether their conclusions can be adjusted to the \nnew aspect of things. \n\nI only observe, now, that this meaning does, on the face \nof it, extinguish all idea of fta-T^u) having anything to do \nwith clipping; dipping never brought any object "wholly \nunder the dominion" of anything. And by the same in- \nexorable necessity must be abandoned the long-affirmed \nunity between this word and /Sarrrw. How much of logically \naffiliating error these changes will sweep away with them \nfarther inquiry will show. \n\nWe conclude : 1. This examination of the leading points \nin Dr. Conant\'s treatise does not encourage us to adopt the \n\n\n\nIMMERSE AS A LATIN DERIVATIVE. 81 \n\nBaptist postulates : (1.) One clear, precise, definite mean- \ning. (2.) Identity between pd-ru> and fta-z^co. (3.) jSa-z^io \nexpresses a definite, modal act. (4.) Metaphorical use is \na mere picture of the primary use. \n\n2. It shows that Dr. Conant is not in accord with previ- \nous Baptist writers in his exposition of the word, particu- \nlarly with Dr. Carson, who insists, in the most absolute \nmanner, on modal action. Thus the most powerful con- \ntroversialist furnished from the Baptist ranks, and the \nlatest and ablest philological expositor of their views, \ncannot accrce as to the essential value of that word " which \nhas but one meaning," and to understand w T hich " needs \nnot light, but honesty." \n\n3. The exposition, translation, and current phraseology \nlack self-harmony. \n\nIMMERSE AS A LATIN DERIVATIVE. \n\nThe record taken from Baptist writers, as now presented, \nshows a growing disposition to present, and to rely upon \nimmerse as a shield to protect their system against contro- \nversial blows, which otherwise could not be endured. \n\nThis course has been adopted, not under a frank con- \nfession of essential error in past views ; but for the sake \nof covering the temporary retreat of their forces, that they \nmay be preserved for use under happier auspices. Dip \nand plunge are still claimed as the meanings of a word \n"which never has but one meaning;" while immerse is \nintroduced as another meaning, to shield them under con- \nfessed incompetency to meet the demands of actual usage. \n\nTwo questions here arise: 1. "Why is it that, thus, with \npatent inconsistency, dip and plunge are held on to so \ntenaciously? 2. And how is it that immerse becomes so \nvaluable a coveriifg force in these times of disaster? \n\nIn answer to the first inquiry it may be said: The deeply \nfixed notion that /?\xc2\xab\xe2\x80\x94\xc2\xa3> means to dip, sprang out of the \nerror which regarded this word aud fid-rio as substantially \nthe same word, " the one in a long coat and the other in \n\n6 \n\n\n\n82 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\na short one;" or, as a translator of the Baptist Bible Union \nsays, " the one in a modern dress, the other in more ancient \nattire." This conception is an entire mistake, as will, \nhereafter, be shown; bnt it has served to fasten what is \nthe undoubted meaning of ^d-rm upon its associate word, \nnotwithstanding its protest from every case of usage. Un- \nprepared to give up this imaginary relationship between \nthese words, they have held on to the meaning, " dip," in \nthe face of facts, now at last admitted, w r hich render such \nmeaning impossible. \n\nBut why perpetuate this inconsistency which affirms \nthat a word has but one meaning, and yet confesses, in an \nexigency, that it has another ? The only appropriate and \nadequate answer seems to be found in the vital connection \nof the act of dipping with the Baptist system. The rite \nof baptism is performed, under this system, only by dip- \nping, and we are told that it cannot be performed in any \nother way, because the word means specifically " to dip, \nexpressing mode, and nothing but mode;" and this w*ord \nexpresses a divine command, which can only be obeyed \nby the performance of this specific act. Now t , to admit \nthat paxriZu) never means to dip (for to that must come the \nadmission, that sometimes it does not), is to admit that God \nhas not commanded a dipping; and to admit this, is to \ndissipate that excellent glory which has been so passion- \nately claimed for ritual dipping. All this, human nature \nwill be slow to do. \n\nBut how is it that immerse becomes " a friend indeed," \nunder these circumstances ? The explanation is found in \na little duplicity (pardon the word to point the argument, \nI use it Latinice) of use. This facile, duplex use is due to \nits Latin origin and composition, together with an essen- \ntially less pointed character than many other words. \n\nWithout entering into details, it seems desirable, now, \nto refer to the L&tin original of our English word immerse, \nand point out its meaning in that language. \n\n\n\nMEROO \xe2\x80\x94 IM-MERGO. \n\n\n\nMERGO\xe2\x80\x94 IM-MERGKX \n\n\n\nMergo (from which i?n-mergo is formed by composition \nwith the preposition in, and from which m-merse is de- \nrived), does not mean to dip or to plunge; nor docs it \nexpress any definite act ; nor yet act or movement unde- \nfined in character; but it expresses condition characterized \nby inness of position, commonly within a fluid element, \nwhich condition may be effected by any act competent \nthereunto. Mergo expresses none. \n\nThat this word does not signify to dip, to plunge, is \nevident from the prepositions with which it enters into \ncomposition. \n\nSub-mergo, De-mergo, E-mergo, exhibit a cast of com- \nposition which could not be intelligently associated with \na word having the character of action which belongs to \nplunge. But may not in be associated with such form of \nact? Undoubtedly it may; but it does not follow that \nevery word which is compounded with this preposition \ndoes originally or compositely express movement. As in \ndoes, of itself, express simply inness of position ; so it does, \nalso, in composition. And the contrary must not be as- \nsumed in any case. We deny that, as appearing in im- \nmergo, it expresses of itself movement, or that it indicates \nthat mergo has such character. On the contrary, we say \nthat it expresses merely position, and serves to express \nwith emphasis the idea of inness, which is the leading \ncharacteristic of the word with which it is associated. \n\nProof of this position is found in the following facts: \n1. Ovid speaks of a house as mersed, and boats sailing \nover it. This house was not plunged into the water, but \nwas mersed by the water rising up above it. 2. Pliny \nspeaks of one river being mersed into another. This was \nnot by the act of plunging into, but by the act of flowing. \nWill it be said that mergo means to flow ? The act of \nflowing, by which the mersion was effected, is wholly dis- \ntinct from mergo, although no distinct word is employed \n\n\n\n84 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nto express that action. The mersion follows on the flow- \ny ing. 3. While it is more usual to leave unexpressed the \nword by which the act effecting the mersion would be \ndesignated, still there are instances in which the phraseol- \nogy, in this respect, is made complete. \n\n" Spargite me in fluctus, vastoque immergite ponto." \n" Cast me into the waves and immerse me in the deep sea" \n(M. iii, 605.) \n\nHere the act by which the mersion is effected is stated \nto be " casting;" the mersion follows as a consequence. \nHad "immergite" been used alone, it would not have \nmeant to cast, to plunge ; but the condition would be ex- \npressed, which would, of necessity, carry with it some ade- \nquate form of act left unexpressed. \n\n" Ab Jove mersa suo Stygias penetrant in undas." \n" Mersed by her Jove she shall go to the Stygian waters." \n(Ovid iii, 4, 20.) \n\nThis mersion extends to the Styx; but mergo does not \ndenote a plunging which extends from the bright scenes \nof earth to the gloomy banks of that river. This passage \nis provided for by " penetrant," and to mergo is reserved \nthe office of expressing the condition. \n\nThis interpretation is confirmed by the phraseology of \nSeneca, where the word expressing the movement is \nomitted \xe2\x80\x94 " Mergere aliquem ad Styga." \n\nThis omission does not confer on mergo the power to \nexpress the idea of passing, penetrating, plunging; but \ngives the mersion position and character, leaving the word \nof movement to be supplied. \n\nThis is the explanation of all like cases. And in this \nthere is nothing peculiar. The usage is illustrated in all \nwords of the same class. Take for example the word bury. \n"Bury the dead body." To fulfil this command, a pit \nis dug, the body is lowered down, and it is filled up again. \nDoes "bury" mean to dig, to lower down, to fill up? How \nif the body be carried into a sepulchre hewn out of a rock, \nand a stone be rolled against its mouth; does it, then, mean \nto carry into, to roll against ? \n\n\n\nMERGO \xe2\x80\x94 BURY. 85 \n\n" An avalanche of ice and snow buried the entire ham- \nlet." Does bury mean to fall down? "An avalanche of \nice and snow fell down and buried the entire hamlet." Is \nnot this only a more full statement of the other, placing \nthe movement in its proper relation ? \n\n" The flock was buried by the falling snow." Does to \nbury mean to sprinkle with snow-flakes? "The entire \ncrew was buried in the ocean." Does bury mean to sink? \nTo merse may be accomplished by lowering down, falling \ndown, carrying in, sinking, sprinkling over, and it ex- \npresses all these forms just as to bury does; no more, no \nless. And so, when bury is used without there being ex- \npressed, by an additional word, the act whereby the burial \nis accomplished, such word must be supplied, the nature \nof it varying greatly according to circumstances ; but in \nno possible case can " bury" be converted into a word ex- \npressive of act or movement. All which is true of mergo. \nBury is, also, used with into, without, however, in anywise \nchanging its character. " He buried the knife into his \nbody." " The cannon-ball was buried into the ground." \nSuch phraseology does, as Dr. Conant says, express the \npassing from one point to another, but it is a mistake to \nsay that such expression is due to "bury," or that it has \nanything, directly, to do with it. He buries the knife, \nthrusting it into his body. Does bury mean to thrust ? \nThe cannon-ball was buried into the ground by its pro- \njective impetus. Does bury mean " to project" ? \n\nIn, compounded with bury, in-bury, in-tomb, has as little \npower to change the character of the word. It only em- \nphasizes the inness of condition. The same is true of in \njoined with mergo; and when our Baptist friends take \noccasion, from the use, at times, of the Latin preposition \nto denote motion, to engraft this idea on im-mergo, im- \nmerse, they do what is incapable of justification. It is, \nhowever, on this ground (and failure to supply the exec- \nutive verb) that the meaning, dip, plunge, has been erro- \nneously attributed to this word, with some appearance of \ntruth; while, its true nature and proper usage allowed it \n\n\n\n86 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nto be used in eases where dip and plunge were inadmissi- \nble. Therefore, dip and plunge have been used where \nthey could be, and immerse has been used where it must \nbe, with the assumption that it was a kindred word with \nthem, and expressive of act and movement. This duplicity \nof use (I mean not to reproach, but only to show that Latin \nterms Anglicised may change their value) must be abated, \neven though it should cost our Baptist friends the very \nserious and painful loss of dipping as an act of divine com- \nmand. \n\nFAILUKK \n\nHaving now listened with patience, and not without much \ninterest, to all which Baptist writers have to say as to the \nmeaning of (3a-T&u>, with the conviction, that if they could \nmake good a moiety of their unqualified assertions farther \ninvestigation would be precluded, I must confess myself \nnot a little suprised at the result. \n\n"Where is that one, clear, precise, and definite meaning? \nCertainly it is not in Baptist writings. "Where is the evi- \ndence tha/t paitra) and /?a~r\xc2\xa3w have, precisely, the same \nmeaning, form, force, and effect? Not, assuredly, in Bap- \ntist writings. Where is the evidence that P*ict(Co> expresses \nan act, a definite act, mode, and nothing but mode, to dip? \nNot a particle is to be found in Baptist writings. Where \nis the evidence that pa-ri^io expresses in secondary use the \nact (dipping), which is attributed to it in primary use? \nBaptist writers have not furnished it. \n\nWhere is that English word, the daguerreotype of the \nGreek word, which was to flash forth the one, clear, and \ndefinite meaning, so that " a wayfaring man though a fool \nneed not err therein"? There is not a Baptist writer, \nduring three hundred years, who has offered such a word \nwith the attempt to carry it through Greek usage. \n\nAnd where is that translation which was to rebuke the \ndisloyalty of the Christian world, and indicate the un- \nswerving fealty of the few? "It is found in im-mcrse." \nAnd if the Holy Spirit employs a word (as we are told \n\n\n\nADMINISTRATION OF THE RITE. 87 \n\nthat he docs) which " means im-merge, sub-merge, dip, \nplunge, im-bathe, whelm," by what authority are these six \ndefining terms rejected and the seventh taken? Or if, as \nwe are also told, and as Greek usage proves, forty other \nacts may execute the will of this Greek word, why are the \nthirty-nine rejected and the fortieth taken to represent, \njust and no more, the mind of the Spirit? If " im-merse" \nis used in the sense to dip, to plunge, it does most essen- \ntially fail to reflect the Greek word; if it is not used in that \nsense, then away with the definition \xe2\x80\x94 dip, plunge; or away \nwith the " one meaning through all Greek literature." \n\nAn inspection of Baptist writings does not confirm the \nnotion, that the work of defining this word has been done \nby them so thoroughly and so exhaustively of truth, that \nall farther inquiry is a work of supererogation. \n\n\n\nADMINISTRATION OF THE RITE. \n\nBefore instituting any inquiry of our own as to the \nmeaning of this word, let us hear, still farther, what is to \nbe said as to the practical administration of the rite, and \nthe reduction of the theoretical meaning of the word to \nconcrete practice. \n\n"We may, reasonably, expect to find, here, harmony with \nannounced principles, if not absolute truth. \n\nThe Confession of Faith of the Baptist Churches (A.D. \n1644), 40th Article : " The way and manner of dispensing \nthis ordinance the Scriptures hold out to be dipping or \nplunging the whole body under water." \n\nBooth (p. 146) : " The ordinance should be administered \nby immersing the subject in water." \n\nRipley (p. 120) : " The candidates being placed under \nwater." \n\nWat/land (p. 87) : " We believe that the ordinance of \nbaptism is to be administered by the immersion of the \nbody in water." \n\nCurtis (p. 68): "Baptism as a symbol necessarily em- \nbraces an immersion or burial of the body in water." \n\n\n\n88 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nJewett (p. 13) : " The immersion of the subject in water \nis essential to the ordinance." (p. 46): " In baptism we \nare commanded to perform the act represented by the \nword baptize." \n\nStovel (p. 417): "What is to be baptized? The answer \nis, persons." (p. 495) : " The act, therefore, is not sprink- \nling or pouring ; but the motion takes place in the man, \nand ceases when the man is baptized in the water." \n\nTHE ACT\xe2\x80\x94 THE OBJECT\xe2\x80\x94 THE END. \n\nIn these statements respecting the administration of the \nrite three things are presented as of cardinal importance : \n1. The act required to be performed. 2. The object to \nwhich that act is addressed. 3. The end toward which \nthe act carries its object. Let us consider what is said \nof these severally. \n\n1. The act. \xe2\x80\x94 Are we to understand that a definite act is \ntaught or not ? Surety this matter ought not to be left in \nthe dark. Prof. Jewett seems to speak plainly : " We are \ncommanded to perform the act represented by the word \nbaptize." Very well; if we are " commanded" by God " to \nperform an act," it is very important that we should know \nwhat that act is. Will the Professor give us the informa- \ntion? Certainly; it is the act of "the immersion of the \nsubject in water." Very good. And now may we ask \nwhat is the act in " the immersion of the subject in \nwater" ? Undoubtedly, it is " the act which we are com- \nmanded to perform by the word baptize." Indeed ! After \nsuch a lucid circular exposition, who can complain that \n"the act commanded" is not perfectly "clear, precise, and \ndefinite" ? \n\nWhen we turn to Dr. Wayland, we are again confronted \nwith an " immersion of the body in water." And so with \nCurtis, with the addition, " or burial." Booth reiterates, \xe2\x80\x94 \n"immersing the subject in water" is the way "the ordin- \nance should be administered." But, here, we have at least \na negative guide to the act; it cannot be plunge, for this \n\n\n\nTHE ACT \xe2\x80\x94 THE OBJECT \xe2\x80\x94 THE END. 89 \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 \n\nwriter says that word "makes our sentiment and practice \nridiculous." What act, then, do Wayland, and Curtis, and \nJewett propose when they say : " We are commanded to \nperform the act," hut it is not "plunge"? Stovel, too, \nhelps us, negatively, when he says: "The act is not \nsprinkling" (although there was a very extensive baptism \nby sprinkling when Noah sought refuge from it in the \nArk); "nor pouring" (although his friend Fuller thinks \nthat the act of pouring is quite competent to effect a bap- \ntism); but the act consists in "moving a man until he is \nbaptized in water." Such, then, positively, is "the act \ncommanded;" \xe2\x80\x94 to baptize a man is to "move a man until \nhe is baptized"! An act of singular lucidity \xe2\x80\x94 "clear, \nprecise, and definite." \n\nProf. Ripley eschews the use of immerse, with its double- \nness, as, also, " the moving a man until he is baptized," \nand adopts phraseology which neither expresses a definite\' \nact nor movement of the object to be baptized. \n\nThe Confession of Faith, venerable with the years of a \nthird century, unlike its more modern representatives, \ngives forth no uncertain sound: "The way or manner of \ndispensing this ordinance the Scriptures hold out to be \ndipping or plunging." \n\nThis doctrine, or its plain, outspoken English utterance, \nis becoming quite old-fashioned. JSTew terms in theological \nissues seldom fail to foreshadow a departure from the old \n"way and manner." It will, most probably, be found, in \nthe present case, that a Latin derivative has been resorted \nto for the purpose of covering over the abandonment of \nthose ruder spoken terms, dip and plunge, as the exponents \nof " the act commanded." \n\nIf there is a consciousness of error in giving such mean- \ning to the word, let the acknowledgment be made as \nfrankly as by 3Iorell : " We give up, thus far, the cause \nof immersion." If, while abandoning these acts, it still \nbe insisted upon that some act is commanded; and that \n"the act commanded" must be performed; then, in turn, \nwe insist on being told what " the act commanded" is. Do \n\n\n\n90 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nnot give us half a dozen different words varying in their \nforms of action, and say we may take our choice; we wish \nno greater liberty than "the command" gives; we are will- \ning, anxious, to be bound by it. Tell us, then, " the act." \nThere is but one word used in the text. You cannot \n" dip" in half a dozen different ways. If baptize means \n" to dip," you cannot obey the command by baptizing in \na half dozen different ways; no, not by plunging, for Booth \nsays these are essentially different acts ; nor by pouring, al- \nthough Fuller says you can; nor by overflowing, although \nCox says you can. If the command is " to dip," and "the \ncommand is to be obeyed," then, thus far must we go, and \nno farther. If baptize does not, definitely, mean any one \nof these acts, but still does definitely mean action, move- \nment, embracing them all, then let us be furnished with \nan English word of equal breadth (as " the translation is \nthe easiest possible"), and let us hear no more of " the act \ncommanded." But if the word does not belong either to \nthe class of words expressive of definite forms of action ; \nnor of action indefinite; but to that class which is expres- \nsive of state, condition, result, employing " forty" or four \nhundred acts for the accomplishment; then, do not give us \nseven defining words, neither of which, confessedly, meas- \nures the original, making up the deficiency by saying that \nthey agree in "a ground idea." Give us a word which \nexpresses, like the original, that "ground idea," and we \nwill dispense with " the seven" which do not. \n\nIf I am commanded " to bridge a river," I protest against \nthe interpretation of this command into an injunction to \nbuild \xe2\x80\x94 1, sl pier bridge; or, 2, an arch bridge; or, 3, a tubu- \nlar bridge; or, 4, a suspension bridge; or, 5, a draw bridge; \nor, 6, a s tone bridge; or, 7, a pontoon bridge. I protest \nagainst all of these " seven" being taken as the represen- \ntative of the original command, on the plea, of agreement \nin a common " ground idea." And I protest against the \nuse of any of these seven to translate " faithfully" into a \nforeign tongue the original command. It is my liberty to \nuse "pier," "arch," "tube," "wire," "draw," "stone," \n\n\n\nTHE ACT \xe2\x80\x94 THE OBJECT \xe2\x80\x94 THE END. 91 \n\n"pontoon," any one or any combination; and no one has \na right to infringe that liberty by putting into the com- \nmand any one which he may fancy to select, and command \nme to build tJiat. \n\nIf it should be concluded to abandon the idea that act, \ndefinite or indefinite, is commanded; and it be acknowl- \nedged that result, state, condition, constitutes the matter \nof the command; then we ask for a word which will def- \ninitely express that idea, and not something else. This \nwill be easy for those to do who say, " difficulty of trans- \nlation is all a pretence." \n\nWhen such word is secured, we farther demand that it \nshall reign with imperial autocracy through all its usage, \nand that we shall no longer have a rebellious dip or plunge \nintroduced to control translation or interpretation. \n\n" The act represented by the word baptize," which "we \nare commanded to perform," seems to be left very much \nin the dark by Prof. Jewett and friends. \n\n2. The object. \xe2\x80\x94 The object on which this act expends \nitself, next claims attention. Stovel says, "the man;" \nJewett and Booth say, "the subject;" Way land and Curtis \nsay, "the body;" Ripley says, " the candidate;" and the \nConfession of Faith says, " the whole body." \n\nHere there is neither ambiguity of phraseology nor con- \nflict of sentiment. If Baptist writers exhibited as much \nclearness and unity in speaking of the act of baptism a3 \nof the object of baptism, they would be above reproach. \n\n"Man," "subject," "body," "candidate," " whole body," \npresents diversity of phraseology, but unity of material \nobject. This object is, also, presented in the same aspect; \nthe act expends itself not on any of its parts, but includes \nthe "whole." \n\nDip, plunge, imbathe, whelm, sink, overflow, exhibit no \nsuch unity of act under diversity of terms. \n\nThe universal faith of the Baptist Church is, that bap- \ntize commands " the whole body to be dipped or plunged in \nwater." \n\nDoes classic Greek require this? Timon baptized a man \n\n\n\n92 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nin water. Did he " dip or plunge his whole body" ? No, he \nput more or less of his head under water, and so drowned \nhim. \xc2\xa3Tow, what shall be said of the position \xe2\x80\x94 "baptize \nrequires the whole body to be dipped or plunged"? Is it \nnot most evidently erroneous ? But why does Lucian call \npushing the head under water baptism of the man ? Be- \ncause the rest of his body was, already, under water, \nand what remained out was pushed under-? \xc2\xa3so. (1.) This \ncould never be called a baptism, if baptize requires the \nwhole body to be dipped or plunged. (2.) If the head and \nbody of this man had been under water, except his foot or \nhand, or leg or arm, and Timon had pushed that into the \nwater, the Greeks would have smiled at the suggestion \nthat such an act should be called a baptism of the man. \nDid the Greeks adopt the principle, that any part of an \nobject being baptized, the whole might be said to be bap- \ntized? They did not; but they did adopt the principle \n(as this and other cases show), that where the head, the \nnobler part, was baptized, the man was, justly, said to be \nbaptized; especially when that part influenced the whole \nman. \n\nIn Prussia, certain Baptists dip the head, only, into a \nvessel of water. "Regular" Baptists will find it hard to \njustify the withholding fellowship from these imitators of \nthe old Greek, on the ground that baptize necessarily dips \nthe whole body. Baptist sentiment and Grecian practice \nare at contraries. \n\nBut how is it as to the accord between Baptist sentiment \nand Baptist practice ? Are they at one ? \n\nHear Prof. Ripley (p. 76) : "Prof. Stuart blends together \ntwo things that are perfectly distinct, viz., the going down \ninto the water. and the immersion into it. That the going \ndown into the water was the immersion, no one believes; \nthe immersion after the descent into the water is expressed \nby another word, he baptized him." \n\nIs it not marvellous that thoughtful men can write after \nthis fashion, having laid down the principle \xe2\x80\x94 "baptize \ndips or plunges the whole body ?" Is the baptism which \n\n\n\nTHE ACT \xe2\x80\x94 THE OBJECT \xe2\x80\x94 THE END. 93 \n\nProf. Ripley describes modelled after that which Baptist \nsentiment demands, or after that which Lucian describes ? \nHe says: "No one believes" that "the going down into \nthe water" is the baptism; "these two things are perfectly \ndistinct;" the baptism takes place "after the descent into \nthe water;" "it is expressed by another word." Very \nwell; but if baptism is dipping the head into water after \n"the candidate" has done "a very different thing," to wit, \n" walked into the water," which " no one believes" to be \nbaptism, why announce, as a sentiment of faith demanded \nby " fealty to God," that " the way and manner of dis- \npensing this ordinance the Scriptures hold out to be dip- \nping or plunging the whole body under water"? And yet \nthe Professor describes the universal practice, which is in \nflat contradiction to universal sentiment. \n\nTimon\'s baptism was by pushing the head under water \nafter the unhappy man had gone down into the water, or \nhad fallen into the water, or had been swept away by a \nflood, or in some other " perfectly distinct" w^ay had got \ninto the water, and was covered up with the exception of \nhis head. And after the same model is Prof. Ripley\'s \nbaptism. Baptists must change their principle or their \npractice. If their principle is right, there is no obedience \nto " the act commanded," and no baptism in their practice; \nand if their practice is right, there is no truth in their in- \nterpretation of the command, or in their principle which \nthey deduce from it. \n\nIf to this it be, apologetically, answered: "All the body \ngets under water somehow, although not by the act of bap- \ntism, nor in obedience, therefore, to the mode in the com- \nmand; and what is the difference if we substitute the act \nof walking for the act of dipping; the act of the candidate . \nfor the act of the administrator; the head for the whole \nbody" ? \n\nWell, I do not know that it makes much " difference" to \nothers, if Baptists are satisfied. It is their business to have \nsome harmony between sentiment and practice, or not to* \nthrow very big " rocks" at other people\'s glass houses. \n\n\n\n94 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n"But it would be exceedingly difficult \'to dip the whole \nbody into water.\'" That may all be very true; but it \nsounds passing strange from Baptist lips. "Difficulty" \nstand in the way of a faithful administration of baptism ! \nWhy, I thought that that line of argument had been set- \ntled against the Christian world long, long ago, by two \nwords \xe2\x80\x94 " divine command." Are Baptists ready to eat up \ntheir mass of argumentation (not always flattering to self- \nesteem) on this point? Will they now say (what their \nopponents never said, and, through grace, never will say), \nthat difficulty in execution is an apology for disobedience \nto a clear divine command ? Others have said that diffi- \nculties claim consideration in making interpretation of a \ndivine command, and for this and other good reasons they \nhave judged, that "there is no divine command to dip the \nwhole body into water;" and, therefore, do not do so. \nBaptists have judged that God has given such command \nin the most explicit terms of which language is capable; \nand yet have never, in one instance, for three hundred \nyears, obeyed, the command. They may be disposed to \nmake light of this discrepance between their sentiment \nand practice, but it is vain ; it is ruinous to their system \nas it stands. \n\nWhatever the difficulty in dipping the whole body, it \ninvolves no impossibility. When others have suggested \nthat it would be difficult to dip or plunge couches; the \ndifficulty has been smiled away. " The whole body" is \nnot as large as a couch. When it has been said, it would \nbe difficult for the twelve to baptize the three thousand; \nthe answer has been prompt : " If more were necessary, \nwe will find them; where were the seventy"? If more \nare necessary " to dip the whole body," can they not be \nfound? When it has been objected that it would be diffi- \ncult for John to live in the water during all his ministry, \ndipping or plunging such multitudes; the answer has been \nprompt: "Then we will put him on the bank, and he \nshall dip them thence." Could not " the whole body" be \nslid off from the bank by a little clever management ? \n\n\n\nTHE ACT \xe2\x80\x94 THE OBJECT \xe2\x80\x94 THE END. 95 \n\nIs it possible that the rich invention which has sur- \nmounted so many obstacles can, at last, be exhausted? \nCan no way be devised by which the divine command can \nbe met, and " the whole body dipped or plunged" ? \n\nMay not a stimulus to genius be found in the happy \nbearing which it would have on the baptism-burial of \nCurtis? Would it not be far more like a burial to carry \nthe whole body into the water and lay it in " the watery \ntomb," than for a living man to walk into the water \n("which no one believes to be baptism"), and then to dip \nhis head and shoulders? Besides, was not the body of the \nSaviour, " the whole body," thus carried and laid in the \ntomb; and are we not "buried with him, and like him, in \nbaptism"? There is nothing in burial-baptism which has \nbetter authority than this. Why not adopt it, and ventilate \na new argument, with whole obedience to the divine com- \nmand in " dipping the whole body into water?" \n\nThe practicability of the thing has been demonstrated. \nEunomius and his disciples, we are told, did " dip into \nwater the whole body," by the help of ropes and pulleys. \n"Whether this feat was performed under the impulse of a \nconception of duty similar to this modern notion, I cannot \nsay; but the thing has been done, and, therefore, can \nbe* done. \n\nZSTone need hesitate through fear that " ropes and pulleys" \ncould not secure an orthodox Greekly baptism. Classic \nGreek gives us examples of just such baptisms; and Dr. \nCarson would, by like means, baptize " the couches" of \nScripture. Eunomius cannot be made a heretic on the \nground of his " act of baptism." And why be troubled \nwith " unseemliness"? Has not every suggestion of this \nnature been answered, to all Baptist minds, with as much \ntriumph as indignation ? Why, then, not harmonize prin- \nciple and practice? \n\n"Dip the whole body," by some legitimate process, and \xe2\x99\xa6 \ndo not put the larger part of the body under water by the \nwalking of the candidate (which Professor Ripley says, \n" nobody believes to be baptism"); or, while baptizing a \n\n\n\n96 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\npart only of the body, extend some grace toward those who \ndo so in like manner. \n\n3. The end. \xe2\x80\x94 Stovel says, " the act moves the man, and \nceases when the man is baptized in the water;" that is, I \nsuppose, when he is put under the water. \n\nThe Confession of Faith " plunges the whole body under \nwater," and thus and there, ends " the way and manner of \ndispensing this ordinance." \n\nDr. Conant says (p. 60) : " The idea of emersion is not \nincluded in the Greek word. It means simply to put into \nor under water, without determining whether the object \nimmersed sinks to the bottom, or floats in the liquid, or is \nimmediately taken out. A living being put under water \nwithout intending to drown him, is of course to be imme- \ndiately withdrawn from it; and this is to be understood \nwhenever the word is used with reference to such a case." \n\nThis is hardly a fair statement of the case. It is true, \nthat there is nothing in the word to prevent its object from \nbeing "immediately taken out of the water;" but it is \nalso true, that the word never contemplates the removal \nof -its object from the condition in which it has placed it. \n\nThere is nothing in the word bury to prevent its object \nfrom being " immediately taken out." It would, however, \nbe a very extraordinary thing to say that "bury" deter- \nmines nothing as to whether its object is to be immediately \ntaken out of a state of burial. So far as bury is concerned \nit contemplates nothing else, and if the burial is but for a \nmoment this word has nothing to do with it; neither can \nit be used to express the idea of a momentary burial. \nBoys may, in sport, bury one another in the hay-mow or \nin a snow-bank; a vessel may, for a moment, be buried \nunder a wave; but such brief burial never converts bury \ninto dip ; nor is the idea in a dipping and in a momentary \nburial the same, whatever resemblance there may be in \nthe brevity of continuance. Bury remains the strong word, \nand is used because of its power; while dip remains a feeble \nword. The same is true of pa-rCCco. It is never used to \nexpress a momentary condition; although that condition \n\n\n\nTIIE ACT \xe2\x80\x94 THE OBJECT \xe2\x80\x94 THE END. 97 \n\nmay be, and in some very few cases is, of short continu- \nance. But in such cases there is always an element present \nwhich renders the word, in its peculiarity, appropriate; \njust as in the case of bury. It is never used to express \nthe idea of ^a\xe2\x80\x94w, even in brief mersions, any more than is \nbury under like circumstances. \n\nThe statement respecting a living man put under water \nwithout intending to drown him, and the necessity for his \n"immediate withdrawal," is not better grounded in the \nmerits of the case. I remember but one solitary case in \nthe classics to which the supposed case is, at all, applicable. \n\n" Wherever the word is used with reference to such a \ncase, he must be immediately withdrawn," has, therefore, \na very sharp limitation. \n\nBut even this case does not square with the language \nused. I know not of one case where a living man is \nsimply put into the water, and withdrawn from it, by the \nparty putting him in. To dip, requires that the one dip- \nping should withdraw the object dipped. If I dip a man, \nI both put him in and take him out; but if I plunge a man, \nor souse a man, or immerse a man, though I do not intend \nto drown him, yet it is not implied that I withdraw him \nfrom the water; I may leave him to shift for himself. The \nwithdrawing is necessary to a dipping; but the withdraw- \ning would not necessarily convert a baptism into a dipping, \nalthough I know of no such feature in any classic baptism. \n\nDr. Conant seeks to sustain the ritual dipping of a man \ninto water, and his instant withdrawal, by the usage of the \nGreek word. It cannot be done. It cannot be done; not \nsimply because of the brief continuance under the water, \nbut because it is, and is intended to be, nothing more nor \nless than a dipping. \n\nIf I put into, and withdraw promptly from water a bag \nof gold, I dip it; but if it slips from my hand and it sinks, \nalthough I may recover it within as brief a space of time \nas in the other case, it is not a case of dipping. Any ob- \nject may sink, and remain in this condition for the briefest \nduration; still, sink is not converted into dip. Although, \n\n7 \n\n\n\n98 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ntherefore, Dr. Conant may find a very few cases in which \nthe baptism was for a limited period, he can find no case \nin which a baptism can be converted into a dipping; there- \nfore, he can find no case of the use of this Greek word by \nwhich the ritual practice of dipping a man into water, as a \nbaptism, can be justified. \n\nBut it is said that " if a man is not taken out of the water \nhe will be drowned, and that was never intended by Chris- \ntian baptism." \n\nBut why was the man put into the water ? " Why, to be \nbaptized." Well, baptize will put a man into water, but \nit never did and never will take him out. This Dr. Conant \nadmits; but, he adds, as the man is not intended to be \ndrowned, he must be taken out of the hands of baptize, \nwhich otherwise would drown him. In other words, the \nHoly Spirit has employed a word which requires, abso- \nlutely, disciples to be put under water without making any \nprovision for their withdrawal; and Dr. Conant has to find \nsome way to remedy the defect^ on the ground of an inference \nthat they are not to be drowned ! And all this when fidxrio \nwould have done just what Dr. Conant thinks necessary to \nvolunteer to do, namely, to put in momentarily and with- \ndraw; which word the Holy Spirit never once uses. Now, \nsuch an oversight (may the word be used without irrever- \nence?) by the Holy Spirit is infinitely incredible. And the \n\xe2\x80\xa2Baptist system, which is responsible for originating such \nan idea, is, thereby, hopelessly ruined. \n\nAll Greek writers refuse to interchange fia-xi%io and^a-rw; \nthe Holy Spirit persistently refuses to employ /5a^rw, or to \ninterchange it, in a single instance, with fia-xi^o) in speaking \nof Christian baptism; is it becoming in those who are \n"very jealous for the Holy Spirit" to substitute another \nword for that which the Holy Ghost teacheth? Or, re- \ntaining the form of the word, to supplant it by using the \nmeaning of a rejected word? But this is done by those \nwho substitute fid-no for pa-ri^io ; or, who give to the latter \nword the meaning of the former. \n\nThus, as we give our attention to what Baptist writers \n\n\n\nVALID BAPTISM, 99 \n\nsay in relation to the administration of the rite, we find \nthat they break down at every point. \n\n1. There is a hopeless disagreement as to the command; \nwhether it enjoins a specific act or not, and, if so, what is \nits precise nature. \n\n2. As to the object on which the act bears; the whole \nbody says theory, a part of the body rejoins practice. \n\n3. The language of inspiration (we are told) puts dis- \nciples under water, but makes no provision for getting \nthem out. In this dilemma an unwritten command is \nadded to the Scripture, on the authority of an inference \n(the necessity for which is self-created), and so life is saved ! \n\nVALID BAPTISM. \n\nThe Baptist system rejects, as without validity, every \nbaptism which does not bear certain marks which it lays \ndown as essential. \n\nProfessor Jewett: " The immersion of the subject in water \nis essential to the ordinance." \n\n" In baptism, we are commanded to perform the act \nrepresented bv the word baptize." \n\nThese quotations so thoroughly represent the Baptist \nsentiment, on this point, that the multiplication of quota- \ntions is needless. \n\nFour things are declared " essential to the ordinance." \n\n1. Immersiou. 2. Immersion of the subject. 3. Im- \nmersion of the subject in water. 4. Immersion of the \nsubject in water by the act commanded in baptize. \n\n1. Immersion. \xe2\x80\x94 Although Baptist writers do not use this \nword either with precision or with uniformity, yet they \nwill acknowledge that it carries inness of position with \nit. Xow, we wish to ask, does this word, representing \nBaTZTtafia, carry with it any limitation as to the time of con- \ntinuance ? If there is no limitation of time in this word, \nis there any limitation of time in any word adjunct with \nit? If there is not, then, we ask, on what authority any \nlimitation of continuance can be introduced ? \n\n\n\n100 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nWe affirm that there is no limitation in. the word, and \nthat it cannot be used for a momentary mersion without an \nadjunct word expressing that idea; and that a designed \n"momentary mersion" is not mersion; but is mersion quali- \nfied, so as to transform it and make necessary the employ- \nment of another term for its expression, to wit, a dipping ; \nwhich term is rejected by the Holy Spirit,, and thus a dip- \nping baptism is rejected. This is as certain as that Scrip- \nture is Scripture. \n\n2.. Immersion of the subject.. \xe2\x80\x94 This feature has been al- \nready considered. If this be essential to validity, it is not \nmore certain that a part is not the whole,, than that dip- \nping the head and shoulders is not valid baptism. Samson \nperishes with the Philistines. \n\n3. Immersion of the subject in water. \xe2\x80\x94 Some Baptists feel a \nnecessity for protecting the immersed from being drowned. \nThere is good reason for the interposition of their kind \noffices. The facts to which they appeal are, however, not \nonly inadequate for their purpose but inappropriate. They \nmay prove that a person immersed in water need not, of \nnecessity,. be drowned; but they do not prove that "immer- \nsion in water" would not, of its own force (uninterfered \nwith), drown any living man. The dipping into water of \na living man will not, of its own proper force,, drown any \none. There is no need for the interference of any outside \nagency to save life. It is as much a part of the contract in \ndipping, a man to take him out of the water as to put him \ninto it. In immersing a man there is no such requirement. \nIt is the mersion only, the position of inness, which is \ncalled for, and there the object mersed would abide, to all \neternity, unless some outside influence should recover it. \n\nThe thought which is in immersion has no tendency to \npass into the thought which is in dipping. Whatever com- \nmon elements they may have, they still have a great gulf \nseparating the conception in the one from the conception \nin the other. The command to hang a man is not fulfilled \nby suspending him for a moment. The command to im- \nmerse a man is not fulfilled by dipping him for an instant. \n\n\n\nRESULT \xe2\x80\x94 EX PARTE. 101 \n\nThe reply to this: "It is mildness to suppose that the \nScriptures command men to be drowned,\'\' is met by the \necho, "It is madness" to suppose that the Scriptures com- \nmand men to be put into a condition by a word, which \nunlimited necessarily drowns, without attaching any limit- \nation to that word; while, all the time, they only meant to \nexpress an act of the severest limitations, and which brings \nno peril with it, and which might have been, precisely, \nexpressed by another word. \n\nBaptists put Christian disciples under the water, and \nare, then, under the necessity of saving them from their \n"watery tomb" by changing fta-r^a) into fidzTat. \n\n\xc2\xa5e do not object to men being taken out of the water \nafter they have been improperly put into it; but we object \nto men being dipped into water, and then claiming to have \nreceived a Grcckly baptism. \n\nThere is nothing more true than the proposition, which \nis contradictory of that of Koger Williams\'s friend : " Dip- \nping is" not "Baptizing, and Baptizing is" not "Dipping." \n\n4. The act. \xe2\x80\x94 Valid baptism requires that "the act com- \nmanded" should be performed. The act performed by \nBaptists is that of dipping. This, then, must be the act \ncommanded, and the act which stamps validity. But \nBaptist writers, now, admit that the commanding word \ndoes not " always" mean to dip (soon they will admit that \nit never means so); how do they know that it means so in \nthis command? Such confession puts them all " at sea" \nas to the act commanded, and "valid baptism" floats awaj-, \nbeyond their grasp, into regions all unknown. \n\nRESULT\xe2\x80\x94 EX PAETE. \n\nThe sentiment and practice of Baptists (as presented by \nthemselves), on all the vital features of this controversy \xe2\x80\x94 \nthe meaning of the word; the manner of administration; \nand the requisites to validity ; \xe2\x80\x94 have, now, passed under \nreview. \n\nThe object has been to hear what the friends of these \n\n\n\n102 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nviews had to say, and to suggest any difficulties which \nmight lie on the face of their own statements; not to \ngather them up from other quarters. They have claimed \nthat they were possessed of absolute truth on all these \npoints; and, that that truth was of such transparent clear- \nness, that failure to recognize it must be due not to intel- \nlectual unenlightenrnent, but to moral obliquity. \n\nAgainst the latter part of this position I make neither \ncomplaint nor offer defence. It is a part of "the senti- \nment" which concerns much more those who give it utter- \nance than those against whom it is uttered. In regard to \nthe former part, I would say : \n\n1. As to the word. \xe2\x80\x94 Baptist writers, speaking for them- \nselves, show either, that they do not understand the mean- \ning of this Greek word, or, they can find no representative \nword for it in the English language. (1.) Some (Carson) \nsay: It means a definite act \xe2\x80\x94 to dip, and nothing but dip; \nwhile in cases of actual usage, when this word cannot be \nused, they employ plunge, sink, overwhelm, &c, ad libitum. \n\n(2.) Some (Gale) say : It means a definite act \xe2\x80\x94 to dip ; \nyet, perhaps, does not so much express the act, as the \nresultant condition. \n\n(3.) Some (Cox, Morell, Fuller) say: It means a definite \nact \xe2\x80\x94 to dip ; and, also, means various other acts \xe2\x80\x94 to flow, \nto rise up, to pour \xe2\x80\x94 which issue in covering over their \nobject. \n\n(4.) Some (Conant) say : It means an act \xe2\x80\x94 to immerse, \nto immerge, to submerge, to dip, to plunge, to imbathe, to \nwhelm \xe2\x80\x94 and yet it means none of these, but a ground idea \nwhich is expressed by them all \xe2\x80\x94 to put into \xe2\x80\x94 or, to put \nunder. \n\nThis elaborate explanation is an earnest endeavor to find \na nexus binding all divergencies into unity. It is unsuc- \ncessful. Duplicity remains. Act and condition are both \nsought to be preserved, and the truth perishes between \nthem. \n\n2. As to the ritual administration. \xe2\x80\x94 The statement of their \nsentiment and practice in this matter, as given by them- \n\n\n\nRESULT \xe2\x80\x94 EX PARTE. 103 \n\nselves, shows not a diversity, but a contradiction as irre- \nconcilable as the declaration that one thing is another and \ndifferent thing; or that the whole and its part are equal to \neach other. \n\n3. As to validity. \xe2\x80\x94 The elements essential to validity are \ngiven with unquestionable honesty of intent (as, undoubt- \nedly, are all other views), inasmuch as their own fondly \ncherished form perishes in common with all others. \n\nWith such results of Baptist research standing out upon \nthe face of their writings, it would seem to be neither a \nmoral delinquency, nor even a work of supererogation, to \ninstitute an independent investigation of this subject, in- \nquiring \xe2\x80\x94 " What is truth ?" \n\n\n\nPART II. \n\nINQUIRY ENTEBED UPON INDEPENDENTLY. \n\n\n\nMETHOD OF INVESTIGATION. \n\nUnder the conviction, that the developments made indi- \ncate some essential error, which vitiates the results of Bap- \ntist investigation, we will enter upon an examination of the \nsubject for ourselves. \n\nIf this is to be done with any degree of thoroughness, it \nwill require patience to traverse the whole ground, knowl- \nedge of well-settled principles of interpretation, candor \nand competency in their just application, and common \nsense to know that a universal conclusion cannot, safely, \nrest on a single particular, nor on many, but only upon \nwhat remains after a matured consideration of the action \nand reaction of all cases of usage upon each other. \n\nWhile a satisfactory result might be reached by an ex- \nclusive examination of the word in. question, it is un- \ndoubtedly true that we shall find assistance by conducting \nthe investigation side by side, with some closely related, \nyet essentially differing, word. Such a word is ftd-rw. \n\nIt is, also, manifest that any conclusions reached will be \nmore firmly established, if they shall be sustained by the \nusage of correspondent words in other languages. \n\nThe terms which in Latin correspond with fiaxriZui and \npdTtTiD are mergo and tingo; and in English immerse (strip- \nped of its Baptist usage), and dip. If these words, in these \nlanguages, show similar usage, resemblance, and diversity, \nmoving side by side without coalescence, each with deeply \n\n(104) \n\n\n\nMETHOD OF INVESTIGATION. 105 \n\nmarked and distinguishing individuality, then, we may be \nassured that these words do not represent a sameness of \nconception, or a difference founded on accident, but which \nis grounded in the necessities of thought and language. \n\nWe shall avail ourselves of this source of help toward \nthe firmer establishment of truth. \n\nBeside the general reason, now assigned for the intro- \nduction of a detailed consideration of the usage of /9cwrr<w, \nthere is a special, and imperative, reason found in the \nfact, that these two words have been confounded together \nunder the assumption that they were of identically the same , \nval ue. \n\nWhile this statement has an application beyond our \nBaptist brethren, it applies to them with special force. It \nis only quite recently that they have acknowledged, under \nthe leadership of Dr. Carson, that fid-rco was possessed of \na secondary meaning (to dye), and that this meaning was \nindependent of the modal act of dipping; so much so, in- \ndeed, that/?d-rw could express dyeing effected by sprinkling \nas well as by any other mode. This admission is of mo- \nment both in itself and as indicative that long and earnest \nasseveration, as to what is or is not the meaning of a word, \ncannot, safely, be accepted for proof. \n\nDr. Carson, who has led his friends in this change, still \nasseverates that there is no difference between the primary \nmeaning of ,3d-ra> and the meaning of fta-TiZu, the latter not \nhaving the meaning to dye. Ko attempt is made to prove \nthis by showing a coincidence of usage.\' Such attempt \nnever will be made by any thoughtful man. It is a\' matter, \nhowever, of the first importance to Baptist "sentiment and \npractice" to make fta-T^io responsible for a dipping; con- \nsequently the meaning of fid-ru has been, most illegiti- \nmately, bound on to this word, and is called into use on \nevery convenient occasion; and is made of divine authority \nas u the act commanded" by words of inspiration. \n\nIf such relationship between these words is radically \nerroneous, then all Baptist argumentation upon the sub- \nject is thoroughly vitiated. \n\n\n\n106 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nThis we believe to be true. It is our duty, by adequate \nevidence, to prove that it is so. This necessitates a pre- \nsentation of the usage of both words. \n\nBAnnza. \n\nCLASS OP WORDS TO WHICH IT BELONGS. \n\nIt has already been stated that to merse is the primary \nmeaning which we assign to this word ; and that it does \nnot, of its own force, express any form of act, but the result \nof some act, or acts (involved as necessary to the accom- \nplishment of the effect, but) unexpressed. It belongs, \ntherefore, to that class of verbs which make immediate \ndemand, not for a definite act to be done, but for an effect, \na state or a condition, to be accomplished. \n\nAs this meaning, at once and forever, effects a divorce \nbetween it and its fellow, it is desirable that it should \nreceive illustration and enforcement by an appeal to a few \nwords of the same class, and of similar, general import.. \n\nBUKY\xe2\x80\x94 DROWN\xe2\x80\x94 WHELM. \n\n1. To bury. \xe2\x80\x94 This word does not announce an act to be \ndone, but a result to be secured. \n\nHome Tooke says: "Burial is the diminutive from \nBurgh; a defended or fortified place. To bury means to \ndefend; as Gray in his Elegy expresses it, \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n1 These bones from insult to protect. \' \ni \n\nSepelire has the same meaning, \xe2\x80\x94 to hedge, to keep out of \nfield or garden." \n\nTo bury, then, demands protection for its object by \nposition within some inclosing material. How, by what \nacts this end demanded is to be secured, the word says \nnothing. Many cases, of the primary use illustrating this \nstatement, are unnecessary. \n\n"Abraham buried Sarah his wife in the cave of the \nfield of Machpelah." \n\n\n\nBURY \xe2\x80\x94 DROWN\xe2\x80\x94 WHELM. 107 \n\nThe place of burial being a natural excavation, the acts \nnecessary would be controlled by that fact. \n\n11 And laid him in a sepulchre which w T as hewn out of a \nrock, and rolled a stone unto the door of the sepulchre.\' , \n\nThe preparatory and essential act, in this case, was the \nhewing out of the rock a receptacle wherein the body \nmight be safely deposited. The act of rolling the great \nstone unto the door completed the security and the burial. \n\n" The soldiers slain were buried in trenches dug on the \nfield of battle." \n\nHere a new act, digging, is introduced in the performance \nof the requirement. \n\n" In the deep bosom of the ocean buried." \n\nQuite a different class of acts are called into exercise in \nan ocean burial, from that demanded by a burial in a cave, \nor a rock sepulchre, or an earth grave. \n\n" The daughter of the Indian chief was buried on a plat- \nform, raised some feet, on poles." \n\nSuch diversity of act, however, trenches in nowise on the \nrequirement of "bury;" it said nothing in relation to act; \nits demand was that its object should be placed in some \nprotecting inclosure. This was done when the body was \ndeposited and made secure in .the cave, the sepulchre, the \ntrench, the ocean cavern, or the elevated platform. Bury \nasks nothing as to the quo modo of the acts by which the \nend was secured. \n\nThe secondary or metaphorical use of this word is equally \ndevoid of all reference to act. \n\nIt is desirable to note this usage, as we shall have much \nto do with similar usage of the word under special con- \nsideration, and our conclusions may be not a little in- \nfluenced thereby. \n\n\n\n" He buried himself in a monastery." \n\nNo act is suggested by the use of the word in this pas- \nsage. JSTo act can assist in the elucidation of the meaning. \nThe act done was crossing the threshold and the closing of \n\n\n\n108 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthe door. Does the interpretation tnrn on these acts? It \nwould not be difficult to show a resemblance between \nthese acts and the carrying a dead body into a cave and \nclosing its mouth by a stone; but does any sane man \nimagine that we are called, in the interpretation of this \npassage, to inquire by what acts a burial is effected ? Is \nsuch secondary use of bury to be regulated by carrying \ninto a sepulchre, lowering down into a pit, sliding off from \na plank, or lifting upon a platform? Do not these various \nand contradictory forms of act show the absurdity of an \ninterpretation which should proceed upon such a basis? \nAre we not compelled to put wholly out of view the acts, \nof whatever kind, by which the burial is effected, and take \nthe resultant condition as that which, alone, claims atten- \ntion? \n\nIt is, also, important to bear in mind that a secondary \nuse which is based on an act has, of necessity, a severity of \nlimitation which does not belong to similar use based on \ncondition. An act is, necessarily, limited in its nature ; it \nmust take some specific character; it follows, therefore, \nthat a metaphorical use must be characterized by like \nlimitation. \n\nIt is not so with condition. There is room, here, for a \nvariety of thoughts, and in specific cases one or another \nmay be chosen and brought into special relief. \n\nIn the word " bury," the condition suggested may give \nrise to many varied shades of thought. Among these may \nbe enumerated concealment, removal, restraint, deep pene- \ntration, &c. \n\nIn the present case, it is obvious that the idea intended \nto be expressed is that of concealment. There is no sug- \ngestion of a funeral procession. There is no picture de- \nsigned to be drawn by the writer; but as an object buried \nis, thereby, concealed, shut out of view, separated from \nother things, the use of the word is justified as expressive \nof the idea of seclusion when applied to one entering into \na monastery. \n\nIf it be said, the phraseology \xe2\x80\x94 " buried in a monastery" \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n\n\nBURY \xe2\x80\x94 DROWN \xe2\x80\x94 WHELM. 109 \n\nimplies figure ; I answer, the phraseology is made to har- \nmonize with bury; but does not, therefore, require any \npicturing of the imagination. Should figure and picture \nhe still insisted upon, I, then, ask for the sketch. (1.) "What \nshall the monastery represent? A cave like that of Mach- \npelah, or a pit dug in the earth? (2.) Is the occupant of the \ntomb to he represented as dead or alive? (3.) Who effects \nthe burial? The text says, the buried man "buried him- \nself." How shall this be pictured ? \n\nIs it not obvious that, in such phrases, neither can \n"bury" nor "in" be pressed, hardly, upon for the proof \nOf figure; but that a meaning is to be attached to them, \nderived from the primary use, such as the case demands. \n\n\n\n11 Thy hand, great Chaos, lot the curtain fall ; \nAnd universal darkness buries all." \n\nWill any one insist upon "the act" of burial here? \nWhat will be made out of " letting fall the curtain"? Is \nthis the manner in which graves are dug? \n\nIf any one will say that Pope has given us a figure in \nthe first line, I will, most cordially, assent. No one need \nbe troubled to find the picture. It is all drawn for us \xe2\x80\x94 \n"great chaos" \xe2\x80\x94 "thy hand" \xe2\x80\x94 "curtain falling" \xe2\x80\x94 the ele- \nments of a grand and awful picture are all there; but \nwhen any one goes on to join with such a scene another \nfigure, in which a tomb, &c, loom up, they must think \nthat the writer is bereft of his senses. \n\nDarkness and the grave are always associated, and, in \nfact, are concomitants. Both hide their objects from view. \nSo much, therefore, of the word bury as expresses this \nidea, may be taken when that term is used in connection \nwith darkness, and all else pertaining to it be dismissed as \ninappropriate. This is so done here. Such modified use \nof words is better designated as a secondary use than as \nfigure. \n\n\n\n110 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nrt I have, as when the sun doth light a storm, \nBitry\'d this sigh in a wrinkle of a smile." \n\nShall I, again, ask for " the act of burial" ? Shall I, \nagain, ask, whether we are to convert, under the demands \nof figure, " a wrinkle of a smile" into a grave? Is such \na method of interpretation in harmony with the compari- \nson? What is the point of resemblance between " the sun \nlighting up a storm" and "putting a sigh into a grave"? \nAs sunbeams do not dig graves for storms, neither do \nsmiles for sighs. \n\nIs it not true, and is it not enough to say; an object which \nis buried is, thereby, made to disappear; and as a sigh is \nmade to disappear by a smile, therefore a smile may be \nsaid to bury \xe2\x80\x94 cause to disappear \xe2\x80\x94 a sigh ? \n\nA word, in such secondary use, must not be interpreted \nas expressing all that can be put into it, in view of its \nprimary use, but just so much as .the peculiarity of the case \nmay demand. \n\n" Princeton has gone on in the accustomed way ; Pro- \nfessors buried in the immensity of their subjects." \n\nDoes the sentiment turn on act or condition ? An object \nwhich is buried is placed in v a condition which removes it \nfrom the surface. Professors, engaged in study, advance \nbeyond the surface of things, progressing into the depths \nof their great themes; and to express this shade of thought, \nprofound and not superficial study, " bury" may be used. \nIn such, all thought of a grave is out of question. \n\n\n\nu Brutus. Give me a bowl of wine : \nIn this I bury all unkindness, Cassius. \n\nCassius. My heart is thirsty for that noble pledge: \nI cannot drink too much of Brutus\' love." \n\n" The act" of burial, here, is the drinking of a bowl \nof wine. Does the sentiment turn on the act of drink- \ning ? The wine-cup, emptied in friendly pledge, put away, \nburied "all unkindness." This is the idea made emphatic \n\n\n\nBURY \xe2\x80\x94 DROWN \xe2\x80\x94 WHELM. Ill \n\nand impressive by the use of a word with modified mean- \ning and out of its ordinary application. \n\n\n\n" But in your bride you bury brotherhood." \n\nPoetry would become marvellously prosaic under the \nattempt to transfer such language, interpretatively, to the \ncanvass. The " bride" being converted into a plot of \nground into which a pit is sunk, while coffined " brother- \nhood" is being sadly deposited in its depths ! \n\nBetter let the poetry remain, and call on secondary use \nto show how, that as an object buried is destroyed, there- \nfore, when marriage destroys " brotherhood " it is proper \nto say: " In your bride you bury brotherhood," \xe2\x80\x94 meaning \nthat the bride is the occasion of the destruction of fra- \nternal affection. \n\n\n\n" He lay buried in the deep lethargic sleep which was \nhis only refuge from the misery of consciousness." \n\n" The act" of burial, here, was drinking to excessive \nintoxication. Does such "act" govern the interpretation? \nCommon sense, no less, revolts at such interpretation as \nwould convert sleep into a pit \xe2\x80\x94 a a deep" pit \xe2\x80\x94 in the earth \nor a cavern in the sea, at the bottom of which should "lie" \nthe drunken sleeper, covered over, buried, with earth in \nthe one case, or with sea billows in the other. \n\nWhen it is said of a man who lies at our feet, in full \nview, that "he is buried in sleep," is it not patently absurd \nto say that, in such case, "bury" means to cover over, "to \nhide from view"? Is not the man uncovered? Is he not \nin full view? Does the speaker mean to stultify himself, \nor those whom he addresses? Such interpretation is out \nof all question. \n\nAn object which is buried \xe2\x80\x94 or burghed \xe2\x80\x94 is protected \nfrom anything which would assail it; but this very pro- \ntection becomes the cause of restraint. What protects the \nburied from the approach of enemies, at the same time \nprevents the buried from going forth out of the protecting \n\n\n\n112 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ninclosure. Protection and restraint, therefore, are ideas \nwhich equally belong to the idea of burial ; and either of \nthem, according to the indication of the case, may be \ntaken out of a buried condition. Now, the only idea \nwhich is admissible in the case before us is that of re- \nstraint, or in intimate conjunction with protection. The \nsleeper is held bound, in every sense, physical and intellec- \ntual, by profound lethargy; and while he is. thus under \nrestraint from which he is powerless to escape, he has \nsought this very bondage "as a protection, a refuge from \nthe misery of consciousness." \n\n"Buried" does, most legitimately, mean, in such use, \nto be under the \'power of; and such burial becomes a pro- \ntection, a refuge, a burgh from a stinging conscience. \n\n\n\ntl mention but one other case : \n\n"Before I freely speak my mind herein, \nYou shall not only take the sacrament \nTo bury mine intents, but to effect \n"Whatever I shall happen to devise." \n\nThis presents an absolute use of the word. Are we to \nbe guided by "an act" (to dig, for example), to the right \nunderstanding of it? Where is the grave to be dug in \nwhich "mine intents" are to be interred? \n\nEvery object "buried" is placed in a covered condition. \nEvery such covered object is concealed. To bury em- \nbraces the idea of concealment. This is what is de- \nmanded by the speaker; "take the sacrament to conceal \nmine intents." "Bury" expresses the thought emphati- \ncally \xe2\x80\x94 conceal profoundly, so that they shall be protected \nagainst the knowledge of all persons. \n\nThese, and like cases of usage, prove : (1.) Bury does not \nbelong to the class of words which gives expression to an \nact to be done; but it makes demand for a condition to be \neffected, leaving the act unexpressed as to its form, and \nwhich it may take at will. \n\n\n\nBURY \xe2\x80\x94 DROWN \xe2\x80\x94 WHELM. 113 \n\n(2.) Such usage is not well designated as figure, but \nshould be regarded as a secondary use in which a modified \nmeaning (readily deducible from the original meaning) is \npresented, while the structure of the phrase is made con- \nformable to the leading word. \n\n(3.) Greatly varied shades of meaning, and sometimes \neven material diversities of thought, may be exhibited in \nthe secondary use of this class of words. \n\n2. To drown. \xe2\x80\x94 !No definite act is expressed by this word, \nnor is its import in anywise dependent on any form of act. \nIt expresses, primarily, the condition of an object covered \nby water; and then the effects, the influence exerted, \nupon such objects by such covered condition; and then, \nby an additional step, influence, of a correspondent char- \nacter, where there was no, real or supposed, covering with \nwater. \n\nThat modification of the original meaning, which em- \nbraces the influence exerted over the life of living ani- \nmals, and covered by water, is now the most common; \nand is likely, unless guarded against, to give coloring to \nthe use of the word where such coloring should find no \nplace. \n\nThis modified use of a word, originally expressive of such \ncondition, is most natural, not to say most necessary, and \nwill find exemplification in other kindred words; especially \nin that word, to determine the usage of which is the object \nof this inquiry. \n\n"A great w^aue of the sea cometh sometyme with so \ngreat a violence, that it drowneth the shyppe: and the same \nharme doth sometyme the small dropes of water that en- \ntreth through a lytell creueys, in to the tymbre and in to \nthe botomc of the shyppe, yf men be so negligente that \nthey discharge hem not by tymes. And, therefore, al- \nthough there be a difference betwixt\' these two causes of \ndrowning, algates the shyppe is drowned" \xe2\x80\x94 Tale of Chaucer, \nfol. 74, p. 2. \n\nThis quotation shows an object " drowned" that is desti- \n\n8 \n\n\n\n114 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ntute of life. No immediate or special influence is exerted \nover it by the condition into which it is introduced, al- \nthough from the nature of the case it perishes. \n\nIt, also, furnishes us with evidence, that as long ago as \nChaucer\'s time it was a settled matter that the act by \nwhich the drowning was brought about had nothing to do \nwith giving character to the drowning. It might be the \non-rushing of a mountain billow or tiny drops distilling \nthrough a . " ly tell creueys," " algates" (in all ways) "the \nshyppe was drowned." \n\n\n\n" At length his courser plunged, \nAnd threw him off ; the waves whelmed over him, \nAnd helpless in his heavy arms, he drowned.\' \'\' \n\nThis is a perfectly clear case, in which \xe2\x80\x94 (1.) Drown does \nnot express either plunge, throw, or whelm, \xe2\x80\x94 the acts en- \ngaged in the drowning. (2.) E"or does it express the covered \ncondition by water, as in the case of the " shyppe." Such \ncondition exists, unquestionably; but it has been already \nexpressed by " the waves whelmed over him," and, there- \nfore, cannot be repeated by this word. (3.) It does express, \ndirectly, the influence exerted by such condition on a living \nman, \xe2\x80\x94 it extinguishes life. \n\n\n\n" These were events of such magnitude, it would seem \nto silence its tongue and drown its voice." \n\nThis absolute use as clearly expresses influence, without \nany covering by water or anything else, as does the pre- \nceding case express influence exerted by the covering \nmaterial. This conclusion is based, not merely on the \nabsence of any literal or figurative covering element in \nthe statement, but because that which "drowns" is so rep- \nresented as to preclude its being used for any such pur- \npose. It is the " magnitude of events" that "silences and \ndrowns." The magnitude of events is not a drowning \nmaterial, although well calculated to exert such power- \n\n\n\nBURY \xe2\x80\x94 DROWN \xe2\x80\x94 WHELM. 115 \n\nful influence (destructive in character) as " drown" fitly \nrepresents. \n\n\n\n11 Till drowned was sense, and shame, and right, and wrong." \n\n" What is this absorbs me quite? \nSteals my senses, shuts my sight, \nDrowns my spirit, draws ni} T breath ; \nTell me, my soul, can this be death?" \n\nIn both these passages Pope uses " drown" to express, \ndirectly, a destructive influence. To introduce an explana- \ntory water-flood is to drown out every feeling of propriety \nand just criticism. \n\nI will, only, farther call attention to the use of this word \nwhere the form of figure is used. It is of importance to \nhave clear and just views as to the principles on which \nsuch language is employed, and the basis on which the \ninterpretation must proceed. \n\n\n\n" All drown\'d in sweat the panting mother flies, \nAnd the big tears roll trickling from her eyes." \n\n" Drown\'d in sweat" is conceivable as a literal, physical \nfact. " Sweat" is a liquid capable of drowning a living \nanimal covered by it; and we can conceive of it as being \nso multiplied as to be sufficient to drown, literally, the \nhind chased by a lion, of which Pope here speaks. Some \ninsist on the most severely literal interpretation of such \nlanguage, and demand that the imagination shall be taxed \n"to picture this animal as lying under a pool of "sweat" \nuntil " drown\'d;" for has not the poet said, "drown\'d in \nsweat?" \n\nMost persons will be too much disgusted by such " a \npicture" to care to look long upon it: so we turn away \nsatisfied that " drowned in" does not, after all, mean \ncovered over to suffocation " in sweat." \n\nWe are compelled to qualify such language by the exi- \ngency of the case. " Drown" can only be used to express, \n\n\n\n116 CLASSIC BAPTISM, \n\nwith deep emphasis, the profuseness of the sweating; and \n"m" is used as the necessary particle to harmonize with \ndrown, and is no more to be pressed, on the ground of its \nmeaning in cases of literal drowning, than in the word \n(drown) which originates its use. This particle, here, \nmerely serves to point out that which " drown" declares \nto have been in excessive profusion, and all idea of inness \nis necessarily dropped. There is a superficial covering \nwith the fluid. \n\n\n\nM My man monster hath drowned his tongue in sack." \n\nAgain; "drowned in sack" is a physical possibility, and, \nmore, has actually been clone. Is it meant, by Shakspeare, \nthat this language should be understood literally? He \ndoes not mean "drowned" in the sense \xe2\x80\x94 deprived of life; \n"the tongue" is not so drowned. He does not mean \n" drowned" as simply covered over; such was neither the \nfact nor to the writer\'s purpose. He uses it to denote the \ndestruction of the power of speech by excessive wine- \ndrinking. As wine is a liquid and drown is destructive, \nthe loss of the power of speech by drunkenness is well \ndescribed as "a drowning of the tongue in sack." "In," \nhere, being used, simply as the natural appendage to drown, \ncannot be pressed in its independent meaning; such mean- \ning is unsuitable here. It points out the source of influ- \nence which so drowned the tongue by its intoxicating \nquality as to destroy the power of intelligent speech; not \nthe mode of doing it. \n\n\n\n"And drown\' \'d, without the furious Ocean\'s aid, \nIn suffocating sorrows, shares his tomb." \n\n"Drown\'d in suffocating sorrows" is, literally, an im- \npossibility. Understood as figure, how is the language to \nbe interpreted? (1.) "In," does not necessitate the imagin- \ning " sorrows" to be a pool of water in which a drowning \nor a covering over must take place, any more than the \n\n\n\nBURY \xe2\x80\x94 DROWN \xe2\x80\x94 WHELM. 117 \n\nsame particle requires that " the hind" or * the tongue" \nshould he thus introduced within " sweat" and " sack." \n\n(2.) "Drown\'d" does not require the destruction of life; \nbecause " sorrow," with which it is associated, and the in- \nfluence of which it develops, does not destroy life neces- \nsarily. (3.) But life is, in this case, destroyed, and is indi- \ncated by "suffocating" and "tomb." "Suffocating" is not \nemployed with a view to its own proper force (for it has \nno such force here), but in subordination to the use of \n"drown." Wq take out of " suffocating" so much as is \nindicative of death, and leave the special mode of death, \nindicated by this word, go, as inappropriate. In this we \nhave confirmation of the explanation already given of \n" in." We take from this word so much as indicates the \nsource of influence, and reject the form of inness as un- \nsuitable to the case. A water picture of drowning is, ex- \npressly, rejected. \n\n\n\n" In sorrow drown\'d \xe2\x80\x94 but not in sorrow lost.\' 7 \n\nAs " sorrow" does not kill by its own nature, " drown\'d" \nbecomes restricted, when used in connection with it (as well \nas in all other like cases), to a development of its influence \nas excessive and eminently painful. \n\nAs in the previous case the appendages showed that the \ndrowning was fatal, so, in this, Young shows us that it was \nnot, \xe2\x80\x94 " drowned, but not lost." \n\n\n\n11 But though man, droicri\'d in sleep \n"Withholds his homage, not alone I wake." \n\nIf the mind receives the impression from "drown\'d" of \na covering fluid, it, at once, corrects itself as it encounters \n"in sleep," and says, "I was mistaken; there is no refer- \nence here to water, but to sleep; the drowning must be \nqualified by the adjunct." Sleep cannot "drown;" but it \ncan powerfully influence, and hold in still repose even- \nfaculty both of body and mind; and as an object " drowned" \n\n\n\n118 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nis held under the influence of water in the highest degree, \nthe phrase "drowned in sleep" must mean that the in- \nfluence of sleep is exerted over its object in a controlling \ndegree, but not by being put into a pool. Sleep is not \nmeasured by quantity but by quality. It does not drown \nby its bulk, but by its intensity. Therefore, sleep which \ndrowns is commonly represented as induced by the sprink- \nling of soporific clew. Sprinkling can drown in sleep. \n\n\n\n" The \'grunting hogs alarm the neighbors round, \nAnd curs, girls, boys, and scolds, in the deep base are drown\' d." \n\nIt would be a most notable figure which would require \nthe transformation of a the grunting of a hog" into a pool \nof water in which were exhibited \xe2\x80\x94 " scolds, boys, girls, \nand curs," struggling, sinking, and drowning ! \n\nPope has scarcely indulged himself in such a freak of \nimagination. \n\nIf it be said that "curs, girls, boys, and scolds" are not \nto be drowned, but only their noises, then I ask for special \ninstruction as to the mode by which "noises" are drowned \nin a pool of water ! \n\nIf any are better pleased to understand "drown" as \nrepresenting a destructive influence proceeding from "the \ndeep base" of the grunters and overpowering all lesser \nnoises, we shall make no objection. \n\nOne or two instances, where there is no form of figure \nin the phraseology, and where none is intended, but a \ndirect expression of influence, without any water imagery \ninducing death or covering, will now be adduced. \n\n\n\n" What is a drunken man like, fool ? \nLike a drown\'d man, a fool, and a madman: \nOne draught, above heat, makes him a fool ; \nThe second mads him, and a third drowns him." \n\nHere are four stages in the progress of wine-drinking, \nas described by Shakspeare : (1), it heats; (2), it fools; \n\n\n\nBURY \xe2\x80\x94 DROWN \xe2\x80\x94 WHELM. 119 \n\n(3), it macls; (4), it \xe2\x80\x94 "puts in a pool of water"! or (if pre- \nferred), inside of a full cask of wine! \n\nIs this such interpretation as befits the dramatist? To \nmake this interpretation harmonize with the entire pas- \nsage, "to heat" should put the wine-bibber into the element \nup to the knees; " to fool" should place him in up to the \nbreast; "to mad" should raise it to his lips; while "to \ndrown" should give the coup de grace and put him under. \nA final "draught" might render a man "dead drunk," but \ncould hardly (by figure) flood him. \n\nShakspeare uses "drown" in this passage without refer- \nence to suffocating or covering, but directly expressing the \npower of wine to control and to stupefy every physical and \nintellectual power. Wine heats literally; fools, literally; \nmads, literally; droicns, literally; in the secondary sense, \nhere employed, namely, suspending the exercise of every \nfaculty, physical and intellectual. \n\n\n\n"But, .idieu ! these foolish drops \nDo somewhat drown my manly spirit; adieu! " \n\n" Somewhat" is not a proper qualifying term to apply to \nthe extinction of life, or to the covering over with water. \nIt is a very suitable term to qualify the exercise of in- \nfluence exerted to a limited degree. Tender emotion \nsoftens the sternness of a manly spirit; such emotion is \nshown by tears; tears suggest the use of "drown;" and \ndrown is employed to denote the destructive influence of \ntender emotion, as manifested by "foolish drops" upon a \n" manly spirit." \n\nTo magnify " foolish drops" into a pool of water, into \nwhich "manly spirit" is introduced and covered over until \n" somewhat" suffocated, may afford exercise to an erratic \nimagination ; but it is a work in which common sense will \ndecline to have any part. Such usage shows that drown \nhas passed from its original use expressive of coveriug \n\n\n\n120 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nover with a fluid, and, specifically, extinguishing life by \nthe influence of such covering; as, also, that it has laid \naside the mode of figure as the vehicle for the expression \nof its thought, and does directly express a destructive \ninfluence tinged with such individuality of character as is \ninseparable from its origin. \n\nIn this varied usage of drown there is no form of "act" \nwhich appears to give it existence, or to determine its im- \nport at any point whatever. \n\nIn cases of figure, there is no justification for putting \nthe object into a pool of water, the form of the figure \nbeing designed, merely, to give strong development to the \ninfluence of the adjunct; nor is it necessary to conceive \nthe object as placed within this adjunct (sometimes im- \npracticable, and sometimes unsuitable), for the purpose \nof developing its influence, and this is thoroughly done by \nthe word " drown." \n\nThe usage of this word shows : (1.) A condition \xe2\x80\x94 object \ncovered by a fluid. \n\n(2.) The influence exerted over the object so covered. \n\n(3.) Influence exerted over an object without covering, \nreal or supposed. \n\n3. To Whelm. \xe2\x80\x94 Expresses no form of act, but condition \neffected by a variety of acts. This condition is, like the \npreceding, a covered condition; but the covering substance \nis more commonly brought over the object, and, as espe- \ncially characteristic, with a power which cannot be suc- \ncessfully resisted. This peculiar feature adapts this word, \nespecially, to mark irresistible influence; and having no \nsuch special limitations as belong to bury and drown, it is \nadapted to a much wider range of application. As there \nis a variety of words which express covered condition with- \nout adaptation to a broad application, "whelm" has a less \ncommon use to express a physical covering, and a much \nmore extended application to metaphysical, or all un- \nphysical influences which are irresistible in their power. \n"Whelm and overwhelm do not differ in value. The latter \n\n\n\nBURY \xe2\x80\x94 DROWN \xe2\x80\x94 WHELM. 121 \n\nsimply expresses what is essentially implied in the former. \nWhelm orcr-comes hy coming over irresistibly. \n\n" By the mysgydynge of the stcrysman he w T as set upon \nthe pylys of the brydge, and the barge whelmyd, so that all \nwere drowned." \xe2\x80\x94 Fabian, Chronicle, 1429. \n\n\n\n11 On those \xc2\xabursed engines\' triple row, \nThey saw them whelmed, and all their confidence \nUnder the weight of mountains bury\'d deep." \n\n11 Plung\'d in the deep forever let me lie, \nWhelm \'d under seas." \n\nThese three passages show "whelm" used in connection \nwith "drown\'d," "bury\'d," "plung\'d," and in marked \ndistinction from each of them. In the last "plunged" is \nstated to be "the act" from which the whelming results; \nand in every other case there is an act by which this \ncovered condition is induced which is not expressed by \nwhelm. \n\n\n\n" The water is ever fresh and newe \nThat whelmeth up, with waucs bright, \nThe mountenance of two fingers hight." \n\n" How must it groan in a new deluge whelm\'d, \nBut not of waters." \n\n(i To whelm some city under waves of fire." \n\n"Old Dulness heaves the head, \nAnd snatched a sheet of Thule from her bed, \nSudden she flies, and whelms it o\'er the pyre; \nDown sink the flames, and with a hiss expire." \n\n11 Covereth it by whelming a bushel over it." \n\n11 Whelm some things over them and keep them there." \n\nThe acts involved in these transactions are diverse in \ntheir forms, but all effect a covered condition which over- \ncomes by its power. It is, also, to be noted that there is \n\n\n\n122 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nno such limitation of this word to fluids as to require the \ninterpretation of figurative, or secondary use, on the as- \nsumption of such primary use. \n\n\n\n"Before her mother Love\'s bright Queen appears \nOverwhelm\' d with anguish and dissolved in tears." \n\n" Those hangings with their worn out graces, \nLong beards, long noses, and pale face% \nAre such an antiquated scene \nThey overwhelm me with the spleen." \n\n" Guilty and guiltless find an equal fate, \nAnd one vast ruin tuhelm the Olympian state." \n\n" Some accidental gust of opposition \nO\'erturns the fabric of presumptuous reason, \nAnd whelms the swelling architect beneath it." \n\n"Of grievous mischefes, which a wicked fay \nHad wrought, and many whelm\'d in deadly pain." \n\n"Joy \nInvades, possesses, and overwhelms the soul \nOf him whom Hope has by a touch made whole." \n\n" Overwhelmed at once with wonder, grief, and joy, \nHe pressed him much to quit his base employ." \n\n"And moated round with fathomless destruction, \nSure to receive and whelm them in their fall." \n\nu Who perish at their request, and whelm\' \'d \nBeneath her load of lavish grants expire." \n\n"At the first glance, in such an overwhelm \nOf wonderful, on man\'s astonished sight \nHushes Omnipotence." \n\n" An overwhelming apparition. Like an apparition from \nthe grave, you startled me from my self-possession and \njudgment." \n\n" He came down from his throne; he struggled forward \na few steps, like one who is weak from some whelming emo- \ntion, and laid his trembling hand" \\ . . \n\n\n\nBURY \xe2\x80\x94 DROWN \xe2\x80\x94 WHELM. 123 \n\n" To overthrow law and in one self-born hour, \nTo plant and overwhelm custom." \n\nIt is unnecessary to dwell on the specialties presented \nby these cases. They show the broad use of the word ap- \nplicable to any case of overcoming influence. Anguish \nand joy, wonder and fear, emotion of any controlling kind \ngives occasion for its use. A gust of opposition, mischiefs \nof a fay, old tapestry hangings, as well as the wonders of \nthe infinite firmament, may, equally, whelm. \n\nSuch usage makes manifest the error of interpreting \nwhelm by the form of an act or by a rush of waters. \n\nA few examples of the usage of a word expressing a \ndefinite form of action will place in bolder relief the differ- \nence between such usage and that of a word expressing \nnot the form of an act, but resultant condition. \n\nTake the word \'plunge, which expresses an act character- \nized by rapidity and force of movement, entering, usually, \ninto a fluid element without return. \n\n\n\n" He said, and climbed a stranded lighter\'s height, \nShot to the black abyss, and plung\'d downright. \nThe Senior\'s judgment all the crowd admire, \n"Who but to sink the deeper, rose the higher. \nNext Smedley div\'d; slow circles dimpled o\'er \nThe quaking mud, that clos\'d and op\'d no more. \nAll look, all sigh, and call on Smedley lost: \nSmedley in vain resounds through all the coast. \nThen * essay\'d; scarce vanished out of sight. \nHe buoys up instant, and returns to light." \n\nDunciad, 285-296. \n\nThe annotator on Smedley\'s case remarks: " The alle- \ngory evidently demands a person dipped in scandal, and \ndeeply immersed in dirty work." \n\nHis comment on the person denoted by "*" is, "A gen- \ntleman of genius and spirit who has secretly dipt in some \npapers of this kind." \n\nThis whole passage is one of honest figure. In true \npicture figure there is no change in the meaning of words \nemployed, and, therefore, w T e can learn, here, the meaning \n\n\n\n124 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nof " plunge," and other words, as well as if an actual \ntransaction was recounted. The passage is of special in- \nterest, as it presents, not only the characteristic use and \nmeaning of "plunge," but, also, of sink, dip., and immerse. \n\n" Plunge" here, as elsewhere, expresses an act charac- \nterized by rapid and forcible movement entering into a \nfluid element without return. \n\n"Dive" expresses an act with similar characteristics with \nthe peculiarity of entering the element head foremost. \n\n" Sink" expresses an act characterized by a downward \nmovement without return. \n\n" Dip" is not found, verbally, in the text; but its nature, \nas an act, is very graphically described \xe2\x80\x94 " Scarce vanished \nout of sight, he buoys up instant and returns to light." \nUnlike plunge, dive, sink, dip makes provision for the \nreturn of its object out of the element into which it has \nbeen introduced. By this characteristic it is radically \nseparated from these and all like words which carry their \nobject into an element but do not bring it out. The \nsecondary usage of these words is controlled by, and made \nwholly diverse in conception by reason of, this distinguish- \ning feature. \n\nThe commentator on the text uses the word dip, but not \nin its primary meaning. " Who was secretly dipt in some \npapers of this kind." Here " dipt" cannot be used in \nfigure, properly speaking; for in figure the primary mean- \ning remains unchanged, while dipping into papers is an \nimpossible conception and cannot be employed as a figure. \nWe are necessitated to give to it a secondary meaning, \nnamely, "slightly engaged" in. This is an obvious second- \nary meaning, resulting from the primary, literal, entering \nslightly into a fluid. " In papers," as already stated, does \nnot require inness of position, but is used to be in harmony \nwith dip, and with that word modified must not be pressed \nupon. But dip is, also, used by the annotator in a quite \ndifferent sense; " dipped in scandal" is phraseology based \non the idea of dyeing, and "scandal" is represented as a \ndyeing material. "Dip" may, therefore, be taken as ex- \n\n\n\nMEANING MORE FULLY STATED. 125 \n\npressing directly to dye, or, indirectly, as the result of clip- \nping into a coloring element, represented in the text by \n" quaking mud," and in the note by " scandal." To dip \nwets, dyes, stains, defiles, according to circumstances. "Im- \nmersed in dirty work" harmonizes, as to strength (while \ndiffering in conception), with "dipped in scandal;" the \nunity arising from the power which is in "scandal" to \neffect a strong and abiding influence ; it is the very oppo- \nsite, as to strength y from "dipt in some papers." There \nis nothing in " papers" to give any adventitious power to \nthe essential feebleness which belongs to " dip," while \n"immerse" literally denotes completeness of intusposition, \nand in secondary use complete, controlling influence, or \nthorough in contradistinction from superficicd engagedness. \n\nIt is seldom that we have so many of these words \nbrought together with their peculiarities and modifica- \ntions so sharply defined. Plunge, dive, sink, dip, express \nsharply defined acts, with clear r distinguishing differences, \nseparating each from each, but especially dip from all the \nothers. Immerse expresses no such act, but condition of \nintusposition the result of any competent act. \n\n\n\n11 Profoundcr in the fathomless abyss \nOf folly, plunging in pursuit of death." \n\n11 So from the king the shining warrior flies, \nAnd phmg\'d amicUt the thickest Trojans lies." \n\n" If glorious deeds afford thy soul delight, \nBehold ma plunging in the thickest fight." \n\n11 Or plung\'d in lakes of bitter washes lie, \nOr wedged whole ages in a bodkin\'s eye." \n\n"O conscience! into what abyss of fears \nAnd horrors hast thou driv\'n me ? out of which \nI find no way; from deep to deeper piling\' d." \n\nIt is obvious, without multiplying quotations, that the \nword maintains in metaphorical use its peculiarities as an \nact, expressing something which is done in a manner which \n\n\n\n126 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ndemands a descriptive term denotive of earnestness and \nforce. It expresses an act defined by certain character- \nistics in opposition to a condition. \n\nIt is to the class of words represented by bury, drown, \nand whelm that faxriZto belongs; while /3\xc2\xab~\xe2\x84\xa2 belongs # to \nthat other class which is represented by plunge, dive, sink, \ndip, but specifically agrees with dip in bringing its object \nout of the element into which it has briefly- and super- \nficially introduced it. \n\nMEANING MOKE FULLY STATED. \n\nHaving exemplified the important point by which words \ndemanding a condition to be secured, and a definite act \nto be performed, are distinguished from each other; and \nplaced the word in question in the former class ; I now \nproceed to unfold its meaning more fully. \n\n1. The following points are essential to a proper under- \nstanding of the meaning of ^mzxi^m. (1.) Its import is in \nnowise governed by, or dependent upon, any form of act. \n(*2.) Its import is vitally dependent upon, and governed by, \nthe idea of intusposition within a closely investing element. \n(3.) Its import is as vitally connected with a continuance \nwithin the element for an indefinitely protracted period \nof time. It can never be used to express a mere super- \nficial entrance and a designedly momentary continuance. \nThis would wholly change its character, removing it from \nits own proper sphere, and make it a usurper of that of \n\nfidizrai. \n\nIt is proper, here, in view of the distinction made and \nthe importance attached to the difference between condi- \ntion and act, to recall the language of Gale on this point: \n" The word, perhaps, does not so necessarily express the \naction of putting under water, as in general a thing\'s \nbeing in that condition, no matter how it comes so, whether \nit is put into the water or the water comes over it." \n\nDr. Carson, as we have seen, does, very earnestly, reject \nthis statement as inconsistent with Baptist sentiments. Dr. \n\n\n\nMEANING MORE FULLY STATED. 127 \n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 \n\nConant, however, seems to agree, substantially, with Gale, \nwhen he says, that it is not in their peculiarity that im- \nmerse, or immcrge, or submerge, or dip, or plunge, or \nbathe, or whelm, represents fia-r^w, but by reason of some \n" common ground element," which can only be condition. \n\nOn the statement of Gale, Dr. Ilalley remarks: "Had \nhe said \'coming into that condition\' instead of i being in \nthat condition,\' he would have exactly expressed our mean- \ning." \n\nProf. Wilson says: "Dr. Gale rowed hard to bring \nmodal exclusivencss to land; but finding it a troublesome \npassenger, amid the storm of theological controversy, he \nadopted the more prudent course of throwing it over- \nboard." He adds: "Our general statement is, that the \nverb panriZw, unlike fid-rco in its primary sense, is not tied \nto any exclusive mode, but embraces a wider range, and \nadmits of greater latitude of signification. Let the bap- \ntizing element encompass its object, and in the case of \nliquids, whether this relative state has been produced by \nimmersion or by affusion, or by overwhelming, or in any \nother mode, Greek usage recognizes it as valid baptism." \n\nSuch testimonies give emphasis to the position assumed \nas fundamental to the interpretation of this word, and \nchallenge for it a favorable consideration. All idea that a \ndefinite act is demanded by the primary, literal use, and \nall idea that the metaphorical or secondary use is in any- \nwise based on such act, must be abandoned. \n\n2. The idea of intuspositioii \xe2\x80\x94 inncss \xe2\x80\x94 necessarily carries \nwith it that of completeness. An object baptized is com- \npletely invested by the baptizing element, whatever it may \nbe. In some cases (much the fewer, however, in number), \nthe thought may rest here. When a stone, a pole, the sea \nshore, is said to be baptized, the nature of the object natu- \nrally arrests the conception, and bounds it with the simple \ninvestiture. \n\nIn most cases the baptism of an object carries with it \nmore than the complete intuspositioii. Comparatively few \nobjects can be wholly enveloped by a fluid, semi-fluid, or \n\n\n\n128 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nother substance, without experiencing a very special and \nvery thorough influence as consequent upon such position. \nPlace a " ship" in such position, and it perishes ; place a \n"bag of salt" in such position, and it dissolves; place a \nhuman being in such position, and he drowns. \n\nIt is obvious that influence, of the most thorough char- \nacter, is inseparable from the idea of baptism, in most \ncases which are physical in their nature. \n\nControlling influence being established as the ordinary \nattendant upon such envelopment; and such influence, in \none form or another, being developed every day in the out- \nworking of life, where there is no physical envelopment, \nit follows, rationally, if not necessarily, that the exigencies \nof language would lay hold of the term with whose phys- \nical use such idea was associated, and apply it, indiffer- \nently, to all cases where controlling influence was opera- \ntive, wholly regardless of the absence of a physically \ninvesting element, the original form and means whereby \nsuch influence was developed. It is purely gratuitous to \nsay that this must always be done by formal figure, or that \nthere must be an imaginary, shadowy something moulded \nafter the original style of encompassing waters to serve as \na substitute for it, when not actually present. It is abun- \ndantly sufficient to recognize the original source and \nground of the usage, and then freely and directly to em- \nploy the term as expressive of controlling influence, how- \never, and by whatsoever, exerted. \n\nBut we may go, we must go to meet the facts of the case, \nyet one step farther. When a word of a general character \nhas been employed very often, and through a long time, \nto express a controlling influence of a particular kind, it \nmay come to have a specific meaning characterized by \nsuch special influence. Drowning is the result of the in- \nfluence of encompassing waters fully exerted upon a living \nman; to express such envelopment pamtZto was employed; \nthe cases for such application would be frequently occur- \nring, and would be perpetuated from generation to gen- \neration; it would, therefore, necessarily follow that this \n\n\n\nREPRESENTATIVE WORD. 129 \n\nword, sooner or later, would be understood as expressing \nnot merely the fact of envelopment, but, directly, the con- \ndition resultant from it, namely, the drowning. \n\nBy a similar process \xe2\x80\x94 mutatis mutandis, \xe2\x80\x94 it might come to \nexpress, directly, the peculiarity of influence exerted by in- \ntoxicating liquors when drank to excess, viz., to make drunk. \n\n3. These things being so, there is an absolute barrier to \nany connection ever being established between /?\xc2\xab*\xc2\xab\'\xc2\xa3> and \ndip. Neither in primary, nor in secondary use, can these \nwords ever come in contact. And, indeed, as a matter of \nfact, no two words in the Greek language are kept more \ndistinctly and uniformly separate in their usage than are \n\n$a.TZTi%u) and paTzrw. \n\nKEPKESENTATIVE WOKD. \n\nIt is necessary not only that the meaning of a word \nshould be described, but that such description should be \nembodied in some representative word. \n\nIt has been already seen that Baptist writers have en- \ntirely failed to furnish us with such a word. The failure, \nhowever, has not been because no attempt was made to \nmeet the demand. Now, one word has been announced \nas having the precise form and force required; and, then, \nanother word, essentially differing in form and force, has \nbeen declared to be just what was demanded; and yet, \nagain, a third word has been brought forward, radically \ndiffering from both of these, as, unquestionably, the right \none. Such failure, so manifest and so often repeated, \nconstrains us to doubt, not the scholarship (Greek or Eng- \nlish) of these writers, but the existence of any word in the \nEnglish language which fully represents the broad and \nvaried usage of the Greek word. This we shall consider, \nuntil better informed, to be incontrovertible truth. \n\nTake up what word you will, in use with us, and employ \nit as the substitute for the Greek word, and you will very \nsoon tind it running out. Try a second, and it, speedily, \nmeets the same fate. Try a third, and it has no better \nissue. \n\n9 \n\n\n\n130 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nUnder these circumstances it becomes a necessary ques- \ntion \xe2\x80\x94 whether we shall adopt several words to express the \nmodifications of meaning, or whether we shall adopt some \none word, as near. as may be to the fundamental idea of \nthe original, and carry it throughout the entire range of \nGreek usage without regard to the existence, or otherwise, \nof a corresponding English usage. Both these courses \nof procedure present advantages. \n\nThe use of one word, invariably, for the translation of \nthe same word, commends itself, especially in controversy, \nas fit and obligatory, uuless there be imperative reasons to \nthe contrary. The English reader sees, by this course, \nmuch more satisfactorily what is Greek usage, and, also, \nin what measure, and at what points, it becomes divergent \nfrom English usage. He is, also, at liberty to substitute, \nat his own option, other words, according as he feels the \nnecessity, without the bewildering, and oftentimes mis- \nleading, translations of the controversialist. \n\nOn the other hand, failing to find one word which moves \non, pari passu, with fta-xTi\'M, throughout its entire range, \nif we can find a word which naturally, or by definition, \naccurately expresses one form of usage, while another \nword may be found which accomplishes the same for an- \nother form of usage, there would be an advantage in so \ndoing for many readers who might feel embarrassed in \nmaking a satisfactory selection for themselves. \n\nIf we could find a word which was not invested with \nembarrassing circumstances, arising out of its already \nestablished usage, we should be placed on vantage ground. \nTo find such word is difficult, if not impracticable. \n\nTo drown, is in some respects quite a favorable repre- \nsentative word. \n\nIt is so, because: 1. It expresses the entire envelopment \nof an object by a fluid element. 2. It expresses the in- \nfluence exerted over an object by such envelopment. This \nis its special use. 3. It expresses influence where there is \nno enveloping element. 4. It expresses, specifically, the \ninfluence of intoxicating liquors when drank to great ex- \n\n\n\nREPRESENTATIVE WORD. 131 \n\ncess. 5. It has no dependence on any form of act. 6. It \nexpresses no limitation as to the continuance of the state \ninduced. \n\nIn these particulars are embraced all the elements which \nenter into the usage of jSa-z^aj ; but in translating " to \ndrown," we should, assuredly be embarrassed by the \ngreatly predominant meaning \xe2\x80\x94 to destroy life by suffoca- \ntion under water. Nevertheless it is of importance to \nstate, distinctly, that this Greek w r ord is fairly, though \ninadequately, represented by drown. \n\nTo whelm presents some special claim for consideration. \n\n1. It envelops. 2. It influences b}- envelopment. 3. It \ninfluences without envelopment. 4. It is not limited by \nform of act. 5. It is without limit of time. \n\nIts special claim lies in its usage under the third par- \nticular. Whelm (and overwhelm, the same word empha- \nsized) has a secondary usage giving expression to fully \ndeveloped and controlling influence, which, by its nature \nand breadth, represents the Greek word better, perhaps, \nin its like usage, than any other English word. Its de- \nficiency consists in the predominant thought of the liquid \nsweeping over its object with force. Such specialty is not \nin the Greek word. This, however, largely, if not wholly, \ndisappears in secondary use, leaving only the grand idea \nof controlling influence. \n\nTo merse has just and strong representative claims within \ncertain limits. \n\n" Im-merse" is peremptorily excluded : 1. Because com- \npounded with a preposition, which the original word is not, \nand for which there is no conceivable necessity. 2. Be- \ncause im-merse is the proper translation of e^-pa-rc\'to, and \nwhich should (if im-merse is the translation of the uncom- \npounded word) be translated /w,-?\'mmerse. 3. Because the \npreposition has been abused and misinterpreted, as indica- \ntive of movement, while its force was merely local, as a \nproper examination, both of Latin and English usage, will \nfully establish. \n\nIn all cases where the simple envelopment of the object, \n\n\n\n132 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nonly, is concerned, no word, probably, is more unexcep- \ntionable than merse. \n\n1. This word is of common use in cases where an object \nis placed in a fluid, semi-fluid, or any easily penetrable ma- \nterial. 2. It depends upon no form of act. 3. It is with- \nout limit of duration. \n\nBut where the design is to express influence, whether \nas a consequence of envelopment, or controlling influence \nwithout envelopment, this word, markedly, fails. Such \nusage is a leading feature in the Greek word, claiming \nspecial attention, and demanding expression. \n\nThe secondary use of merse (or immerse) does not cor- \nrespond with that of ftartTgw. "I am mersed in study," \nand " I am baptized by study," are phrases expressive of \nvery different ideas. The former expresses thorough intel- \nlectual engagedness ; the latter expresses thorough intellectual \nprostration. \n\nSteep approaches toward the idea, yet falls essentially \nshort of it. To be steeped in any influence is to be thor- \noughly interpenetrated by it, yet so that the influence \nremains under our control; to be baptized by any in- \nfluence, is for us to be thoroughly under its control. \n\nWhelm expresses this additional idea, and it is the only \nword, that I think of, which does do so in so satisfactory \na manner. \n\nIn the first examination of this question, "merse" was \ncarried through every case of the usage of the Greek \nword ; but in doing so the necessity arises for the origina- \ntion of usage unknown to our language. This is embar- \nrassing. Unity of word and clearness of thought cannot \nbe combined. It may be better (though we cannot but \ngreatly regret the necessity) to sacrifice verbal unity to a \nclear statement of the thought. \n\nMerse (immerse) fails to represent the Greek word in \nanother particular, namely, its absolute use. \n\nWhen it is said of a man, absolutely, that he was "bap- \ntized," meaning that he was drowned, we have no corre- \nsponding use of mersed (immersed). When it is said, in \n\n\n\nREPRESENTATIVE WORD. 133 \n\nlike absolute use, he was " baptized," meaning stupefied by \nan opiate; or "baptized," bewildered by questions; or "bap- \ntized," intoxicated; or " baptized," purified; we have no \nlike usage of merse (immerse). \n\nThe fitness of merse (immerse) to represent fia-riZw is \ngood within certain limits; but those limits are decidedly \nrestricted, unless the mind be educated to the interpreta- \ntion of unfamiliar combinations. \n\nTo inn is a word of our language, although of infrequent \nand restricted use. Its radical idea of inness affords the \nessential idea requisite to develop a usage which would \nfaithfully represent this Greek word. The usage would \nhave to be formed out of this radical idea, for it has no \npresent existence; but this is, measurably, true of every \nother word. The advantage would be, that we should not \nhave to unlearn old and unsuitable ideas. In some cases, \nthis word (because so much unused) would bring with it \nless clog to embarrass the thought than any other, more \nfamiliar, word. \n\nThe idea of inness, and of inness expressive of influence, \nis one of greatest familiarity to our language. If this \nthought were embodied in the verb to inn, and applied as \nthe sole representative of the Greek word throughout the \nentire range of its usage, it would be as little liable to \nexception as any other one word, while it would have, in \nsome cases, special advantage. \n\nI make this suggestion not with any design to adopt it \nas a translation, but that it may serve, as a truth laid up, \nto get rid of some of the false notions which have gathered \naround this debated word, by reason of the use of a certain \nset of terms as representative words. \n\nTo steep. \xe2\x80\x94 Steep and dip, in their relation to each other, \nand in their distinctive usage, illustrate, very forcibly, the \ntwo Greek words. Like them, steep and dip come from \nthe same root; and, like them, each has a deeply marked \nindividuality. Dip represents /Sa^\xe2\x84\xa2, steep represents \xc2\xa7<m- \nti^oj. Steep expresses no definite act; it does express en- \nvelopment by a fluid; envelopment, for the sake of influ- \n\n\n\n134 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nence; pervading influence without envelopment; and has \nno limitation of time. Dip and steep present strong claims \nto a front place as the English representatives of /Scot\xe2\x84\xa2 and \npaxrCCu). If, however, we had a verb to deep, then, to dip \nand to deep would exhibit the fundamentally distinguish- \ning characteristic, and could well serve as duplicates of \nthese foreign words. \n\nTo baptize. \xe2\x80\x94 After a thoughtful consideration of every, \napparently, appropriate word, I am induced to believe that \nit would be well to employ baptize to represent the second- \nary use, defining it as expressing controlling influence; the \nparticular nature of the influence being determined by the \nspecialty of the case. We would be less embarrassed, in \nthe use of this word, with previous and irrelevant con- \nceptions, and the mind would be left more untrammelled \nin its effort to extract the thought presented. \n\nAfter all, however, has been said as to the advantages \nand disadvantages in the use of particular words, there \nma} 7 be controversial considerations which will outweigh \nall others, and determine it to be best to use a single word, \nto represent the single Greek word, throughout the whole \nextent and under all the modifications of its meaning. \nThe best word, probably, all things considered, is Merse. \nThe statements already made will show that this word \nis not without its imperfections, while they may help to \nrelieve them. Nor is it without advantage that the word, \nin this uncompounded form, has no common use. We \nshall find, on this account, greater facility in associating \nwith it any modification of thought, desirable, above what \nwould be the case with zm-merse. \n\nBy such use of this word our Baptist friends will be \ndeprived of all possible ground of complaint, while we \nshall show our unbounded confidence that the sentiment \nof passages adduced will be sufliciently clear and power- \nful to correct, and to control, any water tendencies which \nmay pertain to the word, from more familiar usage, in that \ndirection. \n\n\n\nDEFINITION. 135 \n\n\n\nDEFINITION. \n\nDefining \xe2\x80\x94 to merse, to drown, to whelm, to steep, to inn, \nin primary use, as causative of the condition of an object \nwithin a closely investing element, without any limitation \nas to the character of the act inducing such envelopment, \nand without any limitation as to the time of its continu- \nance : \n\nAnd defining \xe2\x80\x94 to merse, to ichelm, to steep, to baptize, in \nsecondary use, as causative of a condition induced by a \ncontrolling influence unlimited as to source, form, or du- \nration : \n\nI would define paxriZu) to mean, primarily, \n\n1. To ixtuspose: to merse, to drown, to whelm, to steep \nto inn; and, by appropriation, to suffocate within a fluid \n(to drown). \n\n2. To influence controllingly: to merse, to whelm, \nto steep, to inn, to baptize; and, by appropriation, to \nintoxicate. \n\nIn this secondary use, the word, or an organic phrase, \nor the word as embodying such phrase, may be translated \nwith the utmost fidelity \xe2\x80\x94 to stupefy, to bewilder, to pollute, to \npurify, &c, &c. \n\nEach of these words expresses a condition induced by \nsome controlling influence. The nature of the influence is \na matter of as absolute indifference as is the means and \nmode by which it is produced. One drop of prussic acid \nis as thoroughly competent to effect a baptism, secondary, \n(perhaps the more common form of baptism expressed by \nthe Greeks), as is an ocean to effect a baptism, primary. \n\nThe meaning thus assigned to pcacrgw must be sustained \nby an appeal to the facts of usage. \n\nEvery passage of what may be termed Classical Greek \n(liberally interpreted), which I have met with, either as \nthe fruit of my own direct examination, or that of others, \nhas been adduced. The period embraced within these \nquotations is about a thousand years. There will, there- \n\n\n\n136 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nfore, be the fullest opportunity for the asus loquendi to give \nits authoritative utterance. \n\nIf any one, after seeing the usage of the two Greek words \nside by side, can hesitate to acknowledge that they are \nradically different in meaning, as radically different in \nreference to the act of dipping as in reference to effecting \na dyed condition, I shall be greatly surprised. \n\nIf the conclusion reached should meet with general as- \nsent, then the bands by which dipping and baptizing have \nbeen so long bound together must be pronounced to be \nunlawful, and proclamation made that there are insur- \nmountable impediments which forever forbid that these \n" twain should be made one." \n\nWhat farther bearing this meaning, assigned to ftaTtri^u), \nhas upon Christian baptism, will be seen when that subject \nshall come before us for consideration. It will not, at pres- \nent, be introduced into the discussion. \n\n\n\nMEANING AND USAGE. 137 \n\n\n\nBAI1TQ. \nITS MEANING AND USAGE. \n\nIt will facilitate our ultimate purpose to consider first, \nthe usage of pd-zTo*, and other words whose meanings are \ndesigned to elucidate, by agreement or disagreement, the \nmeaning of iSa-z^w. \n\nIt has been confidently affirmed that fid-no has but the \ntwo meanings to dip and to dye. Usage will show that this \nlatter position is as untenable as the earlier one which \ndenied that it hadjnore than one meaning \xe2\x80\x94 to dip. But it \nis unnecessary, here, to particularize; the quotations will \nspeak for themselves. \n\nWe have a right, however, to note all such errors, as \njustly enfeebling our faith in other conclusions which we \nare called upon to accept. The commission of frequent, \nand manifest errors, should induce some hesitancy in \naffirming that "it is not so much evidence that is wanted \nas Christian honesty" to cause the acceptance of such \npositions as are, still, zealously pressed by our Baptist \nbrethren. \n\nTo dip has been placed first in order among the mean- \nings of j3d-raj; but whether dip or dye be regarded as the \nprimary meaning, the meaning is dip and not plunge, or \nsink, or any other word whose meaning characteristically \ndiffers from dip. By " dip" is meant a downward move- \nment, without violence, passing out of one medium into \nanother, to a limited extent, and returning without delay. \nPlunge differs essentially from this word in that it demands \nrapidity and force of movement; and, more especially, in \nthat it makes no demand for a return. In critical, or con- \ntroversial writing no word can, fairly, be substituted for \ndip, which has characteristics alien from and contradictory \nto its nature. I know of no instance, where pdimu is used \nto put an object into a fluid to remain there permanently, \n\n\n\n138 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nor for an unlimited time. Nor do I know of any instance, \nwhere this word is used to draw up anything out of a \nliquid which it had not first put into it. \n\nDr. Carson gives more than fifty quotations from Hip- \npocrates, in which, he says, " there can be no doubt but \nwe shall find the characteristic meaning of Bapto." In \nall these cases there is the double movement of in trance \nand outrance. Whether this twofold movement be the \nresult of the explicit demand of the word, or consequen- \ntial on that which is immediately expressed, the result is \nthe same ; both find place in the " characteristic*\' use of \nthe word. \n\nTo dye is now acknowledged to be a secondary meaning \nwithout any, necessary, dependence upon dipping. This \ndoctrine was long and strenuously opposed by Baptist \nwriters, who contended, then, that fid-ru) had but one \nmeaning, as, now, they contend that \xc2\xa3ajrr\xc2\xabCa> has but one \nmeaning ; and that dyeing was a mere appendage to dip- \nping, and an accident consequent upon a dipping into a \ncoloring element. This position is, at length, thoroughly \nabandoned, and the admission made that dyeing by sprink- \nling is as orthodox as dyeing by dipping. In other words, \nit is now, however slowly, yet at last unreservedly admit- \nted, that while pd*\xe2\x84\xa2 to dip expresses a sharply defined act; \nfid-xTo) to dye expresses no such act; but drops all demand for \nany form of act, and makes requisition only for a condition or \nquality of color, satisfied with any act which will meet this \nrequirement. This being true; it is obvious that the differ- \nence between dip and dye, and dip and plunge, is not a \ndifference of measure and form, but a difference of nature. \nDip and plunge express forms of act to be done; dye ex- \npresses a condition or quality to be secured. Thus we \nsecure a stepping-stone toward that truth which we would \nestablish; to wit, that fiaxriZa), unlike fidx\xe2\x84\xa2 to dip, but like \nfidTTTw to dye, does express not a form of act, but a condition \xe2\x80\x94 \ncondition of intusposition, primarily, and condition of \ncontrolling influence, secondarily. Bdizrw, in one of its \naspects, demands a movement which carries its object, \n\n\n\nMEANING ESTABLISHED BY USAGE. 139 \n\nmomentarily, within a fluid element; and in another of \nits aspects, demands a condition which is met by flowing, \npouring, or sprinkling: paxrRZa, in one of its aspects, de- \nmands a condition which may be effected by flowing, \npouring, or sprinkling; and in another of its aspects, de- \nmands a condition which may be effected by anything, in \nany way, which is competent to exercise a controlling in- \nfluence over its object. \n\nThe two leading meanings, to dip, to dye, have, severally, \nmodifications in usage which, as they shall be developed, \nwill show that the refusal to accept of any farther modi- \nfication, in the meaning of this Greek word, is not well \ngrounded. \n\n\n\nMEANING ESTABLISHED BY USAGE. \nPRIMARY \xe2\x80\x94 TO DIP. \n\nZrgpavov efc fiupov jSd^a^. JElian, lib. xiv, cap. 30 \nDipping the crown into ointment. \n\n\'Evi^oupev el~ rov xrjpdv abz?^ rib xode. Aristophanes, Nubes, i, 2. \nDipped its feet into the wax. \n\nT6$ \xc2\xa3fjL t 3d<pa> lafiibv. Aristophanes, Peace, 960. \nI will dip \xe2\x80\x94 in, the torch, having taken it. \n\nEl elq xypdy ftdcpsti nz. Aristotle, On the Soul, iii, 12. \nIf any one should dip into wax. \n\nBdipai yap Ssl, xat tot avat iXxvtrat. Aristotle, Mech. Quest, c. 29. \nIt is necessary to dip and then to draw up. \n\n\'Eq udara xpwffffdv ifiatpe. Constantine, Epigr. of Hermolaus. \nHe dipped a vessel into water. \n\nEh T\xc2\xab? itXeupas fid<J>a<; tt^ atyftrjv. Dionys. Hallic. Ant. Rom. lib. v. \nDipping the spear into the breast. \n\nKa\\ vojk ydp epatfev, Euripides, Orestes, 705. \n\nIf a vessel has dipped. \n\n\n\n140 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nBd([>aq, k\'vsyxe dsupo itovriaq dkog. Euripides, Hecuba, 608. \nDipping it, bring hither of the salt sea. \n\nBdrrretv iari to %dka\\) ti eiq udcop. Scholium, Hecuba, 608. \n\nTo dip is to let something down into water or some other fluid. \n\nObde elq xepippavTrjptov ipfid-rstv. Iamblichus, Vlt. Pythag. C. 18. \nNor to dip \xe2\x80\x94 into the periranterium. \n\nKpiDGGoiaw ddvdoiai \xc2\xa7d(pa\\>re<; ydvoq. Lycophron, Cassandra, 1365. \nDipping pleasure with foreign vessels. \n\nElq GTildyyy tyidvyq abro^stp (3d<pst k"i<poq. Lycophron, 1121. \n\nWill dip the sword into the viper\'s bowels. \n\nTo. xdhzidi x-qpia fid<pat. Theocritus, Idyl v, 127. \nDip honey with a pitcher. \n\n\n\nTO WET. \n\nBd(paq xottyv ttjv X ei P a j npoqpaivei ttjv dixa<TTrjptav. Suidas, de Sierocle. \nWetting the hollow of his hand he sprinkles the judgment seat. \n\n\n\nTO MOISTEN. \n\nQXiftopevoq de fidnrzi xat dvOt\'et ttjv /elpa. Aristotle, Hist. Anim. V, 15. \nBeing pressed it moistens and colors the hand. \n\nTb j3d(J>ac, dt7 t vai xlxlyxev 6 xoitjttjz. Plutarch, Sympos. Prob. 8, 6. \nBd(pat, the poet has called to moisten. \n\nTO WASH. \n\nIlorapolo k^dcparo . . . wpouq kx xscpalr^. AratUS, 220. \nWashed head and shoulders of the river. \n\n"AviysAoq, fidnroi pooo iffxsptoio. AratUS, 858. \nCloudless, washes of the western flood. \n\nv E(3a<p\xc2\xa3 iwurdv fids bcl rdv r.orapov. Herodotus, Euterpe, 47. \nWashed himself, going upon the river. \n\n\n\nMEANING ESTABLISHED BY USAGE. 141 \n\n\n\nBdxToufft Osp/xui. Aristophanes, Eccles. 216. \nThey wash with warm water. \n\n\n\nSECONDARY \xe2\x80\x94 TO DYE. \n\nBdxTouav "A<ppodcT^ tov ~\xc2\xa3~Xov. Achil. Tat. II, 87. \nThey dye the robe of Venus. \n\nTo (fdpriaxov u> fid-rsrac. Acllil. Tat. II, 89. \nThe drug with which it is dyed. \n\n\'Eftdxrsro d\'alrxazt Xtpvq. ^Esopi, Phry. Fab. Batr. 218. \nThe lake was dyed with blood. \n\n\xc2\xb0lm /irj <T\xc2\xa3 j3d(^(o ftdn/ia Zapdiaw.ov. Aristophanes, Achar. I, 1 L2. \nLest I dye you a Sardinian dye. \n\n"Opvtz iSa-zoq. Aristophanes, Aves, 526. \nA dyed bird. \n\nKa\\ zd drr\' adrrjq fta-zopeva Ifidrca. Barker\'s Class. Bee. p. 418, \nAnd the garments which are dyed from it. \n\nTdq rpiyaq, w Nixo)la, roiq ftdrzzs\'\'; at liyoixrv;. Bentleii, Ep. Coll. 139. \nSome say that you dye your hair. \n\nTrj> xzipalry jSd-rs\'.Zj yr t paq 8k ffw ou-ore ftd^scq. Bentleii T Epigr. Coll. \nThou may\'st dye thy head, thy old age thou canst not dye. \n\nKdi <papfid<j<T\xc2\xa3iv rd pdarreiv iXiyero. Eustathius ad II. x, 32. \nTo drug was called to dye. \n\n\'Execdav l-iard^ l/xdzia ftd-Tsrat. Hippocrates. \n\nWhen it drops upon the garments they are dyed. \n\nKaOd-zp ol (Sayzlq -poexxaOacpovTsq. IamblichuS Vlt. Pyth. Xvii. \nAs dyers cleanse beforehand. \n\n"Ept\'.q 5z fta<pTJ ypaxnq, xaraypwaiq. JullUS Pollux, vii, 30. \nYou will call i3a<pT) color, paint. \n\nKa\\ fidfoftai. Menander, Frag. 2, Anger. \nAnd I will dye. \n\n\n\n142 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\'Eav r^ T.\'c alia ypmriara ftdzT7j idv re xai raora. Plato, de Repub. \n\niv, 429. \n"Whether one dye other colors, or whether these. \n\n\n\nTO STAIN. \n\nv Efta(paq syyoc eu ?:pdq "Apystcov arpazw. Sophocles, Ajax, 95. \nIs it well that thou hast stained thy sword with the army \nof the Greeks? \n\nTO SMEAR, \n\nAudita*, xou (prjvt^cuv, xai (3a.-z6p.evoq ftazpayetotc. Aristoph. JSquiteS, \n\n523. \nPlaying the Audoc and the $qy } and smeared with frog-colored \n\nwashes. \n\nTO GILD. \n\nKm Tzvnrp ftd<pa<:, xIougloz igeydvyq. Jacob\'s Anthol. iii ; 145. \nHaving gilded poverty thou hast appeared rich. \n\n\n\nTO TEMPER. \n\nXaX-Aou fta<pds. JEschylus, Agam. 612. \nTemperers of brass ? \n\nBa<pr^ d<pii\xc2\xbbat. Aristotle, Pol. 7, 14. \nTo lose temper. \n\nEb udazt <l>uyp<p fid-zy .... ipappdcGiov. Home?\', OdyS, IX, 392. \nWorking .... tempers with cold water. \n\nBacpr Gifypoq &q. Sophocles, Ajax, 651. \nAs iron by tempering. \n\nQ^lwzxai fizfiappboz o-b ttafou. Scholium, Ajax.\'6Q3. \nTempered by oil it is softened. \n\n\n\nMEANING ESTABLISHED BY USAGE. 143 \n\n\n\nTO IMBUE. \n\nBd-Tzzat yap v~b twv (pa^zaGtwv ij <J\'u%tj, ftd-re ouv abrry; ttj <tuv\xc2\xa3^\xc2\xa317j \n\nrajw toioutwv, (pavzaaiwv. Antoninus M. v, 17. \nThe soul is imbued by the thoughts, imbue it, therefore, by \n\nthe habitude of such thoughts. \n\nAtxawouvri ftefia/xfiivov e><; fidOoz. Antoninus 31. iii, 6. \nImbued by integrity to the bottom. \n\n"Opa prj d^oxouffapwOfjS /j.yj fia<p7}<;. Antoninus M. vi, 25. \nBeware of Crcsarism, lest you be imbued by it. \n\nMouaav tytdvata Tzpwroq eftat/\'e x\xc2\xb0^fi- Bentleii, Epig. Coll. p. 156. \nHe first imbued the Muse with viperish gall. \n\nXo/.rj $z?ja<iho>.~ o<pswv dia-oiq. Strabo, xvi, p. 1117. \nArrows imbued with the gall of serpents. \n\n\'AvaXdfa -d -dOoq zoo fiefta/ifM&ou. Epictetus, Arrian, xi, 9. \nShould adopt the character of one imbued. \n\n\n\n01 fid-rat. Eupolis. \nThe Baptae. \n\n\n\nBAnTil\xe2\x80\x94 PRIMARY. \n\n\n\nTO DIP. \n\n\n\nAll the quotations showing the primary, literal use, \nconfirm what Aristotle says, that the act expressed is one \nwhich carries its object, superficially, into a fluid and \nbrings it out. The act is, emphatically, one of limitations, \n\xe2\x80\x94 limitation of force, limitation of extent of entrance into \nthe element, limitation of time of continuance within the \nelement, and, by consequence, limitation of influence. It \nis, also, noticeable that the objects are limited in magni- \ntude, although there is no other necessity for this than the \nlimitation of human strength, in its ordinary exercise, by \n\\^hich objects are usually dipped. Euripides speaks of \n\n\n\n144 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthe dipping of a sailing vessel; but it is not the entire ves- \nsel that is dipped, but merely the rising and falling pro- \nduced by the wind. The case, more fully stated, is this: \nu Has a ship, with sheet hauled close, struck by the wind, \ndipped ? She will right again if the sheet be loosed." \n\nThe following quotation illustrates the passage : " As \nthe squadron rounded the buoy the wind was free and \nthe sheets were eased off; the vessels righted at once." \nThe dipping is not directly stated, but is involved in the \n"righting." Some have translated this passage \xe2\x80\x94 "if a \nvessel has sunk." There is no sanction here, or elsewhere, \nfor translating fiaizrui to sink. It is never applied to vessels, \nor anything else, sunk; paxrga), exclusively, is used in con- \nnection with such facts. This case proves that a part, \nonly, of an object may be dipped, although there be no \nexpress limitation in the statement. \n\nCarson objects to this (p. 21): "Grave doctors make \nthemselves fools" by saying that the phrase, " they dipped \nthe man in the river, does not necessarily imply that they \ndipped him all over." Euripides was not a " grave doc- \ntor," and so may escape the unenviable brand which the \nDoctor of Tubbermore applies so sovereignly to his fellow \n" doctors." The vessel is dipped (by a sudden blast) into \nthe sea without being "dipped all over," and Euripides \nwas, surely, no " fool" in his knowledge of Greek. Besides, \nDr. Carson, and other " grave doctors," speak, daily, of \n" dipping men in the river," when they, in fact, dip but a \npart of the body (head and shoulders), and I never heard \nof any one calling them " fools" for such use of language, \nhowever much they may be judged liable to the charge \nof inconsistency in carrying theory into practice. \n\nThe preposition employed in all these passages (where \nany is expressed) claims attention. \'Ei- is always em- \nployed, with its appropriate case, and the verb in the \nactive voice directly expressive of the act performed. This \nis the natural use of the word in its primary sense, and \nwhenever otherwise used there is reason to believe that \nthere is some modification in the meaning of the word. , \n\n\n\nMEANINGS GROWING OUT OF DIPPING INTO WATER. 145 \n\nThe use of fiam^m will be found to be in marked con- \ntrast with this. It is used, infrequently, in the active voice \nwith i:c, in its primary sense, because such is not the natu- \nral grammatical construction of this class of words, al- \nthough they may be so employed with a verb understood. \n\nMEANINGS GROWING OUT OF DIPPING INTO WATER. \n\n1. To Wet. \xe2\x80\x94 This is an unavoidable consequence of dip- \nping anything into water; and it would be in perfect \nharmony with the laws of language to use the word, whose \nact produces* the effect, to express such effect when not \nproduced by its form of act. It is difficult, if not impos- \nsible, to translate by dip in the passage from Suidas, and \nit seems to be a necessity to translate by wet. \n\n2. To Moisten. \xe2\x80\x94 In the quotation from Aristotle dip is out \nof all question, and dye seems to be as much so, in con- \nsequence of the use of " aaffi&t." Two words are not needed \nto express dyeing; while the moistening by the juice of the \nberry pressed is essential to dye, stain, or color the hand. \n\nWe the more readily adopt this meaning, as Plutarch \nexpressly says that the word is used in this sense. \n\n3. To Wash. \xe2\x80\x94 Aratus speaks of a crow washing itself \n" of the river." The phraseology indicates that dipping is \nnot intended. The scholiast omits the limitation ("head \nand shoulders") in the text, and says, "washes itself" \xe2\x80\x94 \nfid-ze: Si (airnqv y zopvtxq \xe2\x80\x94 including the whole, while a part \nonly is washed. \n\nIn the second quotation from the same writer the form \nof the phraseology is similar, and is indicative of a similar \nuse. The importance of the form of expression is obvious \nin the translation of Carson \xe2\x80\x94 "if the crow dips his head \ninto the river." "Into" has no existence in the text, and \nwhatever Carson may think, others will be likely to judge \nthat " into the river" and " of the river" are phrases of \nvery different value. \n\n10 \n\n\n\n146 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nHerodotus. \xe2\x80\x94 The quotation from Herodotus is thus trans- \nlated by Carson : " The Egyptians consider the swine so \npolluted a beast, that if any one in passing touch a swine, \nhe will go away, and dip himself with his very garments, \ngoing into the river." \n\nUnless the text of Dr. Carson differed from that before \nme, we have, here, another of those broad discrepancies \nso often found in the translations of this writer as compared \nwith the original. There is nothing said about " going \ninto the river;" the text is "going upon" (the bank of) \n"the river." If, however, it be assumed, as an unstated \nfact, that after having come upon the river, he, also, \n"went into the river" and then "dipped himself," we \nlearn from Dr. Carson that, after all, the dipping of the \nhead and shoulders may be accepted as the dipping of the \nman, "himself," into the river. \n\nThe same writer tells us with some degree of exultation, \n" Here is a religious baptism, and it is by immersion." A3 \ndepicted by Carson, this Egyptian " baptism" into the \nNile is a perfect model for those more modern " religious \nbaptisms" with which he is familiar. " Going into the \nriver," "with clothes on," dipping the head and shoulders; \nthese are the necessary elements. If, now, Herodotus \nwere Matthew, and Egypt were Palestine, and the Nile \nwere Jordan, and last, but not least, if paitrm were /fo-T^w, \nand the facts were as the translator represents, then, to the \nnarrative might be appended an unanswerable Q. e. d. \n\nBut the equanimity with which this transaction is re- \nferred to as a solution of the mode of baptism must be \ndisturbed. It is not called a " baptism" by Herodotus, but \nby Dr. Carson, and with self-inconsistency, for elsewhere \n(p. 48) he says, that this word should never be used with \nbapto. Herodotus understood Greek too well to use any- \nthing else than ftd-ru), here, whether it means to dip or to \nwash, and we cannot allow Dr. Carson to correct, or to \npervert, his language by transforming ftd-rio into /9\xc2\xab-r&. \nThe fact is that this transaction, as represented by Carson, \nis fatal to the Baptist scheme. According to it, a true \n\n\n\nMEANINGS GROWING OUT OF DIPPING INTO WATER. 147 \n\nGreek calls their ritual service a bapting; this we cheer- \nfully admit it to be; but this will not quite answer; so the \nattempt is made to convert it into a baptizing. The Egyp- \ntian bapting may be pleaded as a precedent for modern \ndipping, but it must be just as it is, with no surreptitious \nconversion of the transaction into a baptism. The more \nstrongly this dipping is leaned upon for support, the more \nutterly is Christian baptism abandoned. Bd-no and /Sa-r^w \nare non-interchangeable terms. The Scriptures adopt the \nlatter, and know nothing of Egyptian bapting. Herodo- \ntus is right in the use of language; dipping is bapting, \nand Carson must be satisfied with bapting or change his \npractice. \n\nThe Doctor attempts, in vain, to bridge over the gulf be- \ntween these two words by saying : " The person dips him- \nself; therefore it is bapto to dip, and not baptizo to cause \nto dip." The attempted distinction has no real existence. \nWhen I dip my pen into the ink I cause it to dip just as \nmuch as when I dip the upper part of a man\'s body into \nthe river. Besides, this reasoning is nullified by the writer \nhimself when he speaks of Naaman, finding no embarrass- \nment from the presence of /5a\xe2\x84\xa2&; but makes him, by this \nword, " dip himself," entirely oblivious of the necessity, \narising from this word, that somebody else should be there \n" to cause him to dip." \n\nIt remains, then, classically true, that " Bapting is dip- \nping, and Dipping is bapting;" but this truth throws the \nrite of our friends entirely out of the range of Scripture \nphraseology. \n\nWhat this swine-polluted Egyptian did, whether he went \ninto the river and dipped his head, or remained on the bank \nand washed, has some bearing on the meaning of fid--w, it \nhas none on fja-ri*u>. It expounds the dipping of Baptists; \nit has no bearing on the baptism of the Scriptures. \n\nAristophanes. \xe2\x80\x94 " They wash the wool with warm water." \nCarson admits that this translation " gives the sense, but \nnot the exact version of the words; what is asserted is, that \nthey dip, or immerse, or plunge the wool into warm water." \n\n\n\n148 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nI am sorry that I cannot say that his translation either \n" gives the sense or is an exact version of the words." \nOf what use is it for a controversialist to translate pd-rovm \nOsp/jioj, "they dip into warm water" ? And of what use are \ngrammatical forms, if such as that before us is to be con- \nverted, by some prestidigitation, into another essentially dif- \nferent ? The form and the nature of the case unite in \nsustaining the conclusion, that the dative is instrumental, \nand that there must be a corresponding modification in \nthe use of the verb. \n\nSome things may be washed by dipping, but a greasy \nfleece of wool is not among the number; a dipping, there- \nfore, is not the thing that is here called for, but a washing. \nIt is admitted that " Suidas and Phavorinus interpret bap- \ntousi by plunousi;" but "it argues shallow philosophy to \nsuppose that on this account the words are perfectly synon- \nymous." The " shallowness" may be found to be in Dr. \nCarson\'s examination of the case; but whether or no, I \nleave it to lovers of truth to determine, assured that, how- \never determined, the result bears more strongly on general \ntruth than on the specific issue before us. \n\n\n\nBAnrn\xe2\x80\x94 SECOKDAKY. \nTO DYE. \n\nDr. Gale, representing Baptist writers up to that time, \nsays : " The Greeks apply the word to the dyer\'s art, but \nalways so as to imply and refer only to its true, natural \nsignification to mp." \n\nThis position was tenaciously held for more than a hun- \ndred years, notwithstanding all the mass of evidence accu- \nmulated against it. At length Dr. Carson arose, and \nsharply rebuked his friends for attempting to advocate \nso untenable a position. He boldly affirmed that fid-no, \n" from signifying mere mode, came to denote dyeing in any \nmanner. This serves to solve difficulties that have been \nvery clumsily got over by some of the ablest writers on \n\n\n\nTO DYE. 149 \n\nthis side of the question. Hippocrates employs ^a\'-rw to \ndenote dyeing by dropping \xe2\x80\x94 \'When it drops upon the \ngarments they are dyed\' \xe2\x80\x94 this surely is not dyeing by \ndipping." \n\nThis reasoning is presented by Dr. Carson as unanswer- \nable, and it has been accepted, from him, by Baptists, as \ntruth, although rejected a thousand times when stated bj \ntheir opponents. And, yet, when identically the same \nargumentation is adduced to prove that fidirza* may mean \nto wet\xe2\x80\x94 Nebuchadnezzar being bapted by drops of dew \xe2\x80\x94 it \nis rejected as a mere nullity, and fid-rw can mean nothing \nelse but dip! \n\nGale\'s position in reference to ^i-rw, which Carson re- \npudiates (with the Baptist world crying, w Well done!"), he \nmost cordially adopts as true, in relation to /Sa-rrTw; " the \nGreeks apply this word to cases where there is no immer- \nsion in fact, but always so as to imply and refer only to its \ntrue, natural signification, to dip" And,, again, the Baptist \nworld exclaims, "Well done!" \n\nIt may be of but little avail for us to bring evidence, \n"clear as holy writ," in disproof of this position; but I \nsuppose we must continue to do it until another Carson, \nwilful, but honest and trusted by his friends, shall arise \nand teach them that "from signifying intusposition, and \ncomplete influence from intusposition, it came to denote \nbaptizing," i. c. influencing completely without intusposi- \ntion and in any manner. " This seems to solve difficulties \nthat have been very clumsily got over by some of the \nablest writers on this side of the question." And him \nthey will hear. \n\n" Bcrpting by sprinkling" was once regarded as a very \nfair subject for the exercise of the powers of ridicule; but \nthat time has passed, and, in order to cover the confessed \nerror, the task is assumed of making doubly ridiculous \n"baptizing by sprinkling." Truth can wait; but she will \nnot have to wait long before the confession will, once \nmore, be made \xe2\x80\x94 "there are difficulties very clumsily got \nover by some of the ablest writers" who have ventured to \n\n\n\n150 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nindorse this Baptist position \xe2\x80\x94 " baptizing by sprinkling is \nan absurdity." \n\nBd-TU) to dye has a far more practical and instructive rela- \ntion to pa-T%a), than has /Ja*\xe2\x84\xa2 to dip ; because the former \nmeaning is not, like the latter, a demand for an act, but \nfor an effect, and there is a consequent harmony in gram- \nmatical forms, and, measurably, of thought branching out \nof it. This will be seen to be true by the facts of usage. \nAs a dyed condition may be effected in almost endless \nvariety of ways, even including the paradox, " dipping by \nsprinkling," so, a baptized condition may be effected in \nways no less numberless, even including " the absurdity" \nbaptizing by sprinkling. \n\nWe might decline to use dye to express the modified \nmeaning of fid-ru), and retain dip, throughout, as the Greeks \nretain /?a-rw. \n\nThere would be a propriety in doing so; because, 1. It \nwould perfectly reflect the Greek practice. 2. Because \ndip, in English, also, has the meaning to dye. 3. Because \nthrown on to the sentiment and the syntax, to learn the \nmodification of the primary meaning, there would be some \nequalization of the case with that of iSa-T^u, when it is \ncompelled to vindicate its claim to modified meaning under \nthe uniform use of a single word through all its usage. \n\nBut we will not insist on putting a similar burden on \n/5d-rw; but cheerfully assume the unequal task, believing \nthat the word is able to vindicate its rights even under \nsuch unfavorable circumstances. \n\n\n\n" The lake was dyed with blood." \n\nIt would be quite unnecessary to dwell upon any of these \nquotations, if the only purpose was to establish the mean- \ning to dye; this has been thoroughly done, and is univer- \nsally accepted; but there are other reasons, connected with \nthe grammatical structure, modified translation, varied \nagencies, the introduction of distinct words to express the \n\n\n\nTO DYE. 151 \n\nform of action, as they bear upon and illustrate kindred \npeculiarities in the usage of fta-r&o, which make a rapid \nsurvey of particular passages desirable. \n\nThe above passage from JEsop, attributed to Homer, is \ninstructive by reason of the manner in which it has been \ntreated in the earlier period of this controversy, as well \nas for the reasons prompting to the abandonment of the \nground then taken. \n\nDr. Gale says: "The literal sense is, the lake was dip- \nped in blood. And the lake is represented, by hyperbole, \nas dipped in blood." \n\nDr. Carson replies to this: "Never was there such a \nfigure. The lake is not said to be dipped, or poured, or \nsprinkled, but dyed with blood. The expression is literal, \nand has not the smallest difficulty." \n\nIt is desirable to note several particulars ruling in Dr. \nCarson\'s interpretation : \n\n1. The repudiation of Gale\'s view on the ground of ex- \ntravagance in the figure. \n\n2. The rejection of all figure by the introduction of a \nsecondary meaning. \n\n3. The denial that the act by which the dyeing takes \nplace is expressed by fid-zco. " The blood was poured into \nthe lake," but " fid-ru docs not, therefore, signify to pour." \n\n4. The rejection of the local dative and the substitution \nof the instrumental. \n\n5. The necessity for this as grounded in the meaning \nof the verb as modified. \n\nSo long as Gale insisted on the act dip, he was com- \npelled (whatever might be the amount of violence done to \nthe construction, or whatever might be "the perversion \nof taste") to make the dative represent that in which the \nact took place, for "blood" could not be instrumental in \na dipping; in like manner, when Carson rejected the act \n(dip) and took the condition (dye), he was shut up to the \nnecessity of interpreting the dative as instrumental; for \n"blood" can dye while it cannot dip. \n\n6. The dative is made instrumental, notwithstanding \n\n\n\n152 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthat it represents a fluid element in which (its nature only \nconsidered) a dipping could readily take place. \n\nAll these elements which enter into the rejection of \nGale\'s interpretation (who in this matter does not stand as \na simple individual, but as the representative of the entire \nBaptist body) will come into frequent play in the exposi- \ntion of other passages where Carson will be found attempt- \ning to sustain a similar position in relation to PaurrgtO) with \nthat of Gale to fid-ru, which he has so remorselessly over- \nturned. \n\nOne more point in connection with this passage and we \nmay leave it. \n\n" Bd-ro), from signifying mere mode, came to be applied \nto a certain operation usually performed in that mode. \nFrom signifying dip it came to signify to dye by dip- \nping." And, according to this interpretation, and else- \nwhere, it came, by yet another step, to signify to dye without \ndipping; to dye in any manner. That is to say, the original \npeculiarity of the word, the name remaining the same, is \nentirely lost sight of: 1, to dip; 2, to dye by dipping; 3, to \ndye without dipping. Apply, now, this developing pro- \ncess to /9a7ft&a\xc2\xbb, and we have, 1. To intuspose within a fluid. \n2. To influence controllingly by intusposition within a \nfluid. 3. To influence controllingly without intusposition. \n\nIn the first process /Sa-rw remains, in all its literal integ- \nrity; but dip is wholly eliminated from its signification. \nIn the second process, /?\xc2\xab--<!> exhibits every letter in \nwonted position, while it has, bodily, come forth from \nintusposition in water or in anything else. \n\nHowever much it may be denied that this latter word \nhas such development, in fact, it is beyond denial that \nsuch development may be (unless we are to go back to the \nantiquate.d interpretation of "the lake dipped, hyperboli- \ncally, in a frog\'s blood"), and if it may be, then, the cry \nof "absurdity" is absurd. \n\nWhat are the facts as to this development, we can better \ndetermine when they shall have passed before us. \n\n\n\nTO DYE. 153 \n\n" The garments which are dyed from it are called byssina." \n\nThe use of the genitive (\xc2\xab-\' auT^q) excludes all idea of \ndipping which might be forced upon the dative. Even \nGale could not say, here, " the garments are dipped in it." \nAlthough the garments should have been dyed by dipping, \nstill, the ,^-rw, in this construction, could have neither \npart nor lot in any such dipping. If this act should be \ndesired to appear, and appear under the auspices of /?d^rw, \nthis word as signifying to clip must be called into requisi- \ntion; as meaning to dye, in this passage, its power is ex- \nhausted, and the dipping must be supplied from some \nother quarter. \n\n~No word can have, at the same time, two meanings. \nNo word can mean, in the same passage, both dip and dye. \n\n\n\nAnd I will dye." \n\n\n\nNo regimen is expressed. "I, also, was once young; \nbut I was not washed, then, five times a day; but now I \nam; nor had I, then, a fine mantle; but now I have; nor \nhad I ointment ; but now I have; and I will dye ." \n\nTo dye himself did not require that he should dye his \nwhole person, but the hair and beard \xe2\x80\x94 " crines et barbam \npingcbant" a commentator observes. On the process of \ndyeing a writer from India says: " On reaching the village \nI observed an aged man, the lower part of whose face was \ncovered with bandages, beneath which stuck out the edges \nof green leaves besmeared with a black stuff. I inquired \ninto the cause. The reply was that he had colored his \nbeard, and that the bandage was worn until the color had \nwell dried upon the hair. The coloring of the beard is a \nvery usual custom." \n\nWe, here, learn how absolutely dipping has disappeared \nfrom dyeing. The Christian missionary (J. II. Orbison) \nrepeats what Nearchus said two thousand years ago \xe2\x80\x94 \n"the Indians dye their beards." \n\n\n\n154 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nThe mode, as well as the custom, probably remains the \nsame. \n\n\n\n" "When it drops upon the garments they are dyed." \n\nThis statement goes beyond the others in the exclusion \nof dipping, in that while they expressed this by construc- \ntion and by sentiment, here, we are expressly furnished \nwith a word {eruara^rj) expressing an act of an entirely dif- \nferent character, by which the coloring material is brought \nin contact with the material to be dyed. Professor Wilson \nremarks : " The great critical value of this example con- \nsists in its stripping pdircu* completely of all claim to modal \nsignification, by employing another term to denote the \nmanner in which the dye was applied to the garments." \n\nWe have, here, a favorable opportunity to indicate and \nmake the attempt to correct, an \'error constantly outcrop- \nping in this controversy. \n\nNo Baptist would say that ftd-ra), in the phrase " to dye \nby dropping," expressed the act to drop; no such person \nshould say that fia-xro in the phrase, " to dye by dipping," \nexpressed the act to dip; and, yet, there is a constant iden- \ntification of j3a7TTi\xc2\xa3a) with the act (whatever it may be) by \nwhich its demand is effected. \n\nIt is possible that it may yet be confessed that it is quite \nas facile, and fully as legitimate, to baptize by sprinkling \nas to fiaTZTsiv by dropping; while in so doing, although the \nsprinkling effects a baptism as truly as that the dropping \neffects a bapting, yet pam-ci^ai has just as little responsibility \nfor the expression of the act of sprinkling, as fid-xTa* has for \ngiving expression to the act of dropping. \n\n\n\n" "Whether one dye other colors, or whether these." \n\n" No matter what dye they are dipped in," is the trans- \nlation of Gale and Carson, and is, surely, loose enough \nwhen used as an element for a critical judgment. It \n\n\n\nTO DYE. 155 \n\nshows no regard to the syntax. The comment of Ilalley \nis just: "Whether the xP^t m was th\xc2\xb0 c b" e m ^-\xc2\xb0 which the \nwool was dipped, or the color imparted to it, is not the \nquestion. Be it which it may, it is the object of ftd-Ty; it \nhas gained in the syntax the place of the material sub- \njected to the process; and, therefore, pleads a law of lan- \nguage, that fid-rio in the passage does not, and cannot mean \nto dip, as the color cannot be clipped whatever may be \ndone with the wool." \n\n" Colors dipped in Heaven" (Milton) is a parallel passage; \nwhere "dipped" necessarily means dyed. \n\n\n\nil Lest I dye you a Sardian dye." \n\n"Lest I dip you into a Sardinian dye." (Carson.) Such \ntranslation makes a recast of the syntax. And by so \ndoing opens the way for the introduction of the primary \nmeaning, in contradiction to the principle laid down by \nButtman aud Kiihner \xe2\x80\x94 "when the verb is followed by the \ncorresponding or kindred abstract substantive," \xe2\x80\x94 which \nwould necessitate the translation, "dye a Sardian dye" or \n"dip a Sardian dip." \n\nThe apology offered by Carson for his translation is: \n" As the reference is to the art of dyeing, so the expression \nmust be suited to the usual mode of dyeing." Against \nsuch reasoning we protest. There is nothing whatever \nsuggestive of " the usual mode of dyeing." Gale might \nas well say, " the lake was dipped in blood," because, " as \nthe reference is to dyeing, so, the expression must be \nsuited to the usual mode of dyeing." If Aristotle had a \nright to speak of dyeing by pressing a berry, and if Hip- \npocrates had a right to speak of dyeing by drops falling, \nwhy is Aristophanes to be interdicted from speaking of \ndyeing by bruising? \n\nThe tendency to fall back on dipping as here, and else- \nwhere, manifested needs to be corrected. \n\n\n\n156 CLASSIC BAPTISM, \n\n\n\nMODIFIED MEANINGS OUTGROWTHS OF DYE, \n\nTO STAIN. \n" Is it well that thou hast stained thy sword with the army of the Greeks?" \n\n" Ajax is represented by Sophocles as dipping his sword \ninto the army of the Greeks;" so says Carson. Had any \none else translated Ttpbq by into, none would have frowned \nupon the extravagance more indignantly than Dr. Carson. \nAnd such unwarranted translations to force in dip, by an \nopponent, would have brought down coals of fire on his \nhead. \n\nAs swords are not properly dyed with blood, but only \nstained, temporarily, this and other passages may be re- \ngarded as exemplifying that modified idea, \n\nTO SMEAR. \n\n" Playing the AvJ\'oi and playing the \xc2\xa5\xc2\xbbv, and smeared with frog-colored \n\nwashes." \n\n" Magnes, an old comic poet of Athens, used the Lydian \nmusic, shaved his face, and smeared it over with tawny \nwashes." (Gale and 1 Car son.) The Lydian music and shav- \ning the face are introduced through some misconception. \nThe passage alludes to two plays, as above designated. \nWhat, however, especially claims attention is the transla- \ntion of ftaTzrofjLsvoz by smear, with the remark: " Surely, here, \nit has no reference to its primary meaning. The face of \nthe person was rubbed with the wash. By this example \nit could not be known that /J\xc2\xab^w ever signifies to dip." \n\nWhy Dr. Carson should so unreservedly exclude dip, \nhere, and insist upon its introduction in other passages, I \ndo not know. " The allusion is to the art of dyeing," and \nwhy we are not compelled "to suit the expression to the \nmost usual mode of dyeing" does not appear. We have, \nhowever, the translation \xe2\x80\x94 "pan\xe2\x84\xa2, to smear, to rub!" \n\n\n\nTO TEMPER. 157 \n\nTO GILD. \n" Having gilded poverty thou hast appeared rich." \n\nThe intimate relation between dyeing and gilding is \nobvious. In this passage, and in others, the thought ex- \npressed seems to have passed into this modification. It is \nthe case of a person who had become wealthy from a state \nof poverty. \n\nTO TEMPER. \n""Working .... tempers with cold water." \n\nIt might, at first, be thought that "to temper," as a \nmeaning of fid-raj, should be traced to dip rather than to \ndye; but the tempering of metals is regulated not by the \nact of dipping, in contradistinction from other modes of \nusing water and oil, but by the color and dye of the metal ; \nI, therefore, trace this meaning to dyeing rather than to \ndipping. \n\n" The razor blade is tempered by heating it till a bright- \nened part appears a straw color. The temper of penknives \nought not to be higher than a straw color. Scissors are \nheated until they become of a purple color, which indicates \ntheir proper temper." \xe2\x80\x94 Ency. Amcr., Art. Cutlery. \n\nA friend, connected with one of the most highly esteemed \nedge-tool manufactories in the country, having come into \nmy study, confirms the above statements. \n\nAs the tempering of metals is not the performance of \nany modal act, but the inducing a peculiar condition of \nthe metal, in the accomplishment of which water and oil \nare used as agencies; it follows that these fluids should be \nspoken of, in this connection, as instrumental means by \nwhich an end is to be secured, and not as elements into \nwhich an object is to be dipped. \n\nCarson says: "No one who has seen a horse shod will \nbe at a loss to know the mode of the application of water \nin this instance. The immersion of the newly formed \n\n\n\n158 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nshoe in water, in order to harden the metal, is expressed \nby the word baptein." \n\nIf j3d-T<o means to " harden the metal," to temper, noth- \ning is more certain than that it neither does, nor can, ex- \npress the immersion of the metal; supposing that an im- \nmersion took place. \n\nThe admission is made that the immersion is in order to \nharden; how facile the transition to express directly the \neffect \xe2\x80\x94 to temper. Such transition is most common; why \nnot exemplified in this word ? \n\nAs for the necessity of clipping, I have seen, in a black- \nsmith\'s shop, in routine work, sprinkling, pouring, and \ndipping, all used within about ten minutes. \n\n\n\n" Tempered by oil it is softened." \n\n"Dip by oil" is an impossible translation; "dye by oil" is \nequally so; temper by oil is an every day-transaction. We \nseem to be shut up to this translation. \n\nWhatever plausibility there may be in a plea for dip- \nping, when the dative, especially with a preposition, is \nused, there is none with the genitive. And if, in this case, \nthe oil must be an instrumental means to an appropriate \neffect; then we are justified, in similar circumstances, in \narguing that the dative is used instrumental ly. \n\nIt is clear that if in this passage fidarm siguifies to temper, \nand the tempering should be by dipping into oil, yet, this \nfid-rco cannot express such dipping. Plain as this is, the \ncontrary is so often assumed that the statement needs rep- \netition. In any case the oil is spoken of as instrumental \nmeans. \n\nThe tempering of metals by water, or by oil, results in \ncharacteristic differences. The result is not determined \nby the mode of application of these fluids, but by their \npeculiar qualities; hence the tempering is by water and by \noil, whether it be in water, or in oil, or otherwise. \n\n\n\nTO IMBUE. 159 \n\n\n\nTO IMBUE. \n\n11 The soul is imbued by the thoughts ; imbue it, therefore, by the \nhabitude of such thoughts." \n\n" Imbue" is, perhaps, somewhat too strong to meet the \nrequirements of the passage; and yet seems to be the word \nmost suitable, on the whole, to this and kindred cases. \n\nTo clip involves a very extravagant figuring by which, \n"the thoughts" receive personality, and seizing the soul \ndip it into the dye-tub ! Is this any less " perversion of \ntaste" than "the lake" dipping? \n\nGale gives an active form to the phraseology, " the \nthoughts dip or tincture the mind;" but he has excluded \nhimself from the use of "tincture;" and, besides, this \nmode of translating and defining by " dip or tincture," \n" dip or immerse," is very unsatisfactory in a critical con- \ntroversialist. \n\nCarson, as not unfrequently, exercises a sovereign license \nin the treatment of the passage. His substitution is, "the \nthoughts are tinctured bv the mind." A statement not \ncalculated, by its profundity, to enhance in any very emi- \nnent degree the reputation of the imperial philosopher. \n\nCarson has not cut himself off from the use of dye, as \nhas Gale; but has he any better right to employ "tinc- \nture," here, than has his friend? \n\nIs " tincture" used as entirely synonymous with dye ? \nIf so, why not use dye? Those who insist on single, bar- \nren ideas, as running through the whole compass of a \nlanguage, for long ages, should magnify their work by \nillustrating it in their practice. "Tincture" is as far from \nbeing used as the mere equivalent of dye as is smear, stain, \ncolor, and it is just because of its difference that Dr. Carson \nuses it, here, to the rejection of dye; we cannot allow such \nrigidity of definition and such looseness of translation. \n\n" Tincture" does not necessarily involve color, much less \ndye. A pharmaceutist informs me that some " tinctures" \nare colorless. A passage before me speaks of " water \n\n\n\n160 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nbeing tinctured by a little lemon-juice" Is this dyeing, or \ncoloring, or the imparting of a colorless quality, \xe2\x80\x94 acidula- \ntionf So, in the passage under consideration, it is not the \ncommunication of color which is spoken of, but of quality, \ncharacter. \n\nA habitude of thinking imparts a quality or character to \nthe soul kindred to its own. \n\n\n\n" Imbued to the bottom with integrity." \n\nThis is the summing up of the character of a man un- \ncorrupted by pleasure; unbroken by misfortune; undis- \nturbed by envyings and jealousies; triumphant in self-con- \ntrol \xe2\x80\x94 " imbued to the bottom with integrity" \n\nDip is out of the question. Dye is as little in place. \nIntegrity, justice, has no dyeing qualities any more than \nhas pure water. Its glory is to be void of color; to exhibit \na transparent pureness. \n\nGale is, again, hampered and confused by his erroneous \nconception of the word; "dip\'d, as it were, in and swal- \nlowed up with Justice; that is perfectly just : as we say, \npersons given up to their pleasures and vices, are immersed \nin or swallowed up with pleasures or wickedness." \n\nAll this mixing up of things that differ, shows, 1. The \nerror of limiting fid-no to dip. 2. The error of supposing \nthat ftd-ra) can mean, at the same time, to clip, and, also, \nto swallow up and to immerse. And, 3. The error of con- \nfounding the usage of fimcrw and ySa-rstw, now transferring \ndipping from the former to the latter, and now claiming, \nin return, mersing to be handed over from the latter to \nthe former. \n\nNo passage can be adduced in Greek where /fo\'-rw, or, in \nEnglish, where dip, signifies to be " immersed or swallowed \nup in pleasures, or wickedness," or in anything else. \n\nThis explanation is not satisfactory to Carson while he \noffers nothing better. "I would not explain this, with Dr. \nGale, \' dip\'d, as it were, in or swallowed up with justice.\' \n\n\n\nTO IMBUE. 161 \n\nJustice is here represented as a coloring liquid, which \nimbues the person who is dipped in it. It communicates \nits qualities as in the operation of dyeing. The figure can \nreceive no illustration from the circumstance that \'persons \ngiven up to their pleasures and vices are said to be immersed \nor swallowed up with pleasures or wickedness.\' The last \nfigure has a reference to the primary meaning of /Ja^rw, \nand points to the drowning effects of liquids; the former \nrefers to the secondary meaning of the word, and has its \nresemblance in the coloring effects of a liquid dye. The \nvirtuous man is to be dipped to be dyed more deeply with \njustice; the vicious man is drowned or ruined by his im- \nmersion." \n\nDr. Carson speaks as though this honest man were to be \ndipped " to the bottom" of the dye-tub, instead of imbued \nto the bottom of his own soul. \n\nSuch extravagant interpretations, manifestly groundless \nand framed to meet a case, will prepare us to appreciate \nothers of like characteristics in connection with [ia-xi%m. \n\n\n\n"Beware of Csesarism, lest you be imbued by it." \n\n" Don\'t make the former emperors the pattern of your \nactions, lest you are infected or stained, or as it were dip- \nped and dyed, namely, in mistakes and vices." \xe2\x80\x94 Gale. \n\nThis road to dipping, through " infection," and "stain- \ning," is rather roundabout, and hardly worth the trouble \nof passing over, inasmuch as, after thus reaching " dip- \nping," the Doctor makes no tarrying, but passes on to \nu dyemg" \n\nThis is another illustration of the inconsistency of Bap- \ntist writers in affirming that a word has but one meaning \nthrough Greek literature, and, then, availing themselves \nof the use of half a dozen different meanings whenever \nthe exigency of the case requires it. \n\nCarson is never embarrassed by any difficulty; the knot \nwhich his principles cannot untie, is always resolved by \n\n11 \n\n\n\n162 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthe edge of his knife. "When neither dipping nor dyeing \nwill answer his purpose, he, very sovereignly, asking per- \nmission of none, adds to or takes from these agencies at \nwill. " He uses the same word, also, when the clye injures \nwhat it colors. He cautions against bad example, lest you \nbe infected." The notion of a dye injuring the fabric is that \nof Carson, not of Antoninus. To make injury to the fabric \nthe basis of the interpretation, is to go entirely beyond \nthe record. A dye capable of giving a good or bad color \nis one thing; a dj^eing material which benefits or injures, \napart from the color, the object dyed, is quite another \nmatter. \n\n" To infect" is a translation to which Dr. Carson has no \nright so long as he says that ^dr.rco has but two meanings, \nto dip, to dye; " to infect" is neither the one nor the other. \nAs conjoined with Ccesarism, and regarded as receiving the \ncontagion embodied in that word, it may be so translated. \nWe not only have no objection to the principle, that a \nleading word may embody the sentiment of a phrase, and \nbe treated as its representative; but we do most cordially \naccept of it, and shall insist upon it in cases where Dr. \nCarson may give but reluctant consent. Infection is a \nconsequence of being imbued with Csesarism. There is \nno dyeing, but a transference of moral qualities. The \nidea of color is lost. \n\nThe qualities of honor or dishonor, of truth or falsehood, \nof justice or injustice, of integrity or treachery, are as dis- \ntinguishable as the colors of the rainbow; but they are not \ncolors ; and when jSa-\xe2\x84\xa2 is used to express the communica- \ntion of such qualities, language will no more consent to be \nchained to the dye-tub than will Samson yield his strength \nunder the fettering influence of the "seven green wythes." \nImbue expresses this modification of thought, and is equally \napplicable to any quality, good or bad. \n\n\n\n" Adopt the character of one imbued." \n\nThe interpretation of this passage has caused no little \n\n\n\nTO IMBUE. 163 \n\nembarrassment, and given rise to various translations and \nexpositions. \n\nProfessor Stuart quotes and comments thus: "Why \ndost thou call thyself a Stoic? Why dost thou deceive \nthe multitude? Why dost thou, being a Jew, play the \nhypocrite with the Greek? Dost thou not see how any \none is called a Jew, how a Syrian, how an Egyptian ? And \nwhen we see any one acting with both parties, we are wont \nto say: He is no Jew, but plays the hypocrite. But when \nhe takes on him the state and feelings of one who is washed \nor baptized, and has attached himself to the sect, then he \nis in truth and is called a Jew. But we are r.apa^ar.riaxa^ \ntransgressors as to our baptism, or falsely baptized, if we \nare like a Jew in pretence and something else in reality." \n\n"A great variety of opinions have been given on this \npassage. Some think that Arrian, here, refers to Chris- \ntians; but I see no good ground for such a supposition. \nDe Wctte says : \' The passage is too obscure to gather any- \nthing certain from it.\' \n\n" I can scarcely doubt that the writer refers to the Jew- \nish ablutions. Paulus has endeavored to explain away the \nforce of the whole passage. Bauer suggests that iSefia/inevou \nmay refer to a Christian whom Arrian confounds with a~ \nJew. On the whole I conclude this to be a difficult and \nobscure passage, in some respects." \n\nDr. Halley (p. 346) thinks that reference is made to \nChristian baptism, and that Arrian, a heathen, has foiled \nto discriminate between fid-ru and ^aatri^ as does the New \nTestament. \n\nGale presents this view: "After baptism, and the public \nprofession, they were accounted, and really were, true Jews \nor rather Christians." \n\nThere is no evidence that Arrian confounded either the \ndistinction between ftd-rco and fta-r^w, or that between Jews \nand Christians. The supposition is violent and without \nany real necessity, so far a3 this passage is concerned. \n\nAttention has been directed, so far as I am aware, ex- \nclusively to the primary meaning of /5d-rw, or to a meaning \n\n\n\n164 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n(connecting it with baptism) of which it is not possessed. \nThe cine to the interpretation lies, I think, in the second- \nary meaning- and its modification. \n\nI would translate : " When one takes up the character \n(state or condition) of one imbued and convinced, then, he \nis in reality and in name a Jew." \n\nWhen the passage is considered alongside of those al- \nready examined, can there be a reasonable doubt that this \nis the true interpretation? Usage sanctions the translation, \nand the passage is made luminous by its application. \n\nThe notion of Jewish ablutions or of Christian bap- \ntism is quite inadmissible \xe2\x80\x94 1, because of lack of evidence; \nand, 2, because they render no service when introduced. \nRitual ablutions have no power to discriminate between \nreal and assumed character ; they have no power to un- \nmask a hypocrite or to stamp honesty on profession; and \nthis is the point made by Arrian. The " character of an \nimbued man\' 7 is a positive and known quantity; the char- \nacter of a Jewishly washed, or Christianly baptized man, \nis a variable and unknown quantity. \n\nThe interpretation is farther established by a reference \nto the language of Plato, Iamblichus, Theo. Smyrnseus, \nand others, who speak of the effect of a thorough training \nand instruction as a /9a^., a dye. Not hereby expressing a \ndipping (Gale), nor a coloring (Carson), but a distinguish- \ning and abiding quality of the mind. \n\nThe legitimacy of the use of jtera and /5\xc2\xab^ to denote \nthe communication of some quality devoid of color needs \nno vindication as an abstract proposition; the evidence for \nthe usage as a matter of fact, is before us. \n\n\n\n"That they may receive the laws in the best manner, as a dye." \n\nPlato, having described the great pains taken by dyers \nin order to secure a dye which would be unchangeable and \nineradicable, applies this to the pains taken in training \nsoldiers, which he says is in order to their receiving the \n\n\n\nTO IMBUE. 165 \n\nlaws or ordinances like a dye \xe2\x80\x94 which cannot be washed \nout by pleasure, grief, fear, &c. \n\nBy this comparison, made between a military training \nand dyeing, Plato does not represent the soldier as either \ndipped or colored; but indicates the thorough preparation \nwhich is practised in both cases, and the similarity of re- \nsults, so far as inducing a permanent quality was con- \ncerned, namely, permanent color in the one case, and \npermanent, soldierly character in the other. \n\nTo the same effect is the language of Iamblichus and \nTheo. Smyrnseus, when speaking of the effects of a well- \nconducted course of instruction. " As dyers cleansing \nbeforehand." " Afterwards they receive instruction as a \ndye." Pupils in the school and soldiers in the gymnasium \nreceive their training like a dye, being imbued with abid- \ning qualities. \n\nHow much wisdom would there be, on the basis of this \nallusion to a dye, to convert the school of Pythagoras and \nthe gymnasium into places filled with dye-vats, where \nphilosophers and drill sergeants should be busily engaged \nin dipping pupils and soldiers into their appropriate dye ? \n\nExtravagance like to this we shall often find in the in- \nterpretations of Baptist writers, rather than abandon the \nnotion of a cast-iron inflexibility which they have attrib- \nuted to a Greek word. \n\nBAIITAI. \n\nThis is the title of a play written by Eupolis, much the \ngreater part of which has been lost. \nThe word also occurs in Juvenal ii, 92. \n\nTalia secreta coluerunt Orgia tseda \nCecropiam soliti Baptce lassare Cotytto. \nIlle supercilium madida fuligine tinctum. \n\nThe annotator on this passage says : \n\nBaptce. *Aieo -co fid-zziv, lavare dicti: quia aqua calid& \n\n\n\n166 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ntingebantur illis Sacris Cotyttus initiati. Polit. Miscell. \ncap. 10. Porro, Baptse, titulus Comcedise Eupolidis Poetse, \nin qua viros Athenis ad imitationem foeminarum saltantes \ninducit, et psaltriam lassantes. Vet Schol. Cum autem \nBaptarum lasciviam Eupolis proscripssisset, ab illis in mare \nprsecipitatus et submersus fuisse dicitur. \n\nFeeling a special interest in this word as appropriated \nto designate a particular class of persons, and finding the \nmaterials out of which to form a conclusive judgment as \nto its precise usage quite limited; I ventured to ask infor- \nmation from others who might be supposed to know all \nthat was knowable in the case, and whose scholarship gave \nthem a right to speak so as to challenge the respectful at- \ntention of all. The information sought was grounded \nsolely on the interest of those addressed in the solution \nof a purely classical question, and neither of the respond- \nents had the remotest idea of the special inquiry in which \nI was engaged. While I do not feel that I have .any right, \nat all, to mention the names of the writers, yet I am sure \nthat they would not object to the use of their statements \nas showing the position of a, confessedly, obscure question, \nnamely : What is the precise import which should be at- \ntached to the 61 fidr-ai of Eupolis ? \n\nThe following is one of the replies kindly returned to \ninquiries bearing on this question : \n\n" There is no doubt that the note on Juvenal ii, 92, refers \nto the same persons whom Eupolis calls Baptse. An old \nscholiast on that passage of Juvenal gives us valuable \ninformation concerning the play. \'Baptse ergo molles, \nquo titulo Eupolis comcediam scripsit ob quani ab Alci- \nbiade,- quern imprimis perstrinxerat necatus est.\' \n\n"The latter part of .this scholium appears in another \nshape, as edited by George Valla, in the 15th century, \nthus : \' Ob quam Alcibiades \xe2\x80\x94 necuit ipsum in mare praB- \ncipitando, dicans, " ut tu me in theatris madefecisti, nunc \nego te in mare madefaciam." \' \n\n" A scholiast on the rhetorician or sophist Aristides (ed. \n\n\n\nTO IMBUE. 167 \n\nDindorf 3. 444), gives the following lines from some one, \nwhich must refer to the same event : \n\n"Where /Sa-rw, /8arre\'C\xc2\xab\xc2\xbbj answer to the madefacio of the \nscholiast on Juvenal. And this makes it altogether likely \nthat ftd-zai meant clippers or washers rather than dyers. But \nthe thing is uncertain, opinions differ, and I cannot give \nyou absolute light as to the original sense of Baptae. \n\n" 1. Probably Eupolis had it for his object to satirize the \nsecret orgies of Alcibiades and his vicious companions, by \ndirectly introducing on the stage the orgies of the Baptse, \npriests of Cotytto, who was then worshipped at Corinth, \nwith which state Athens was then at war, and was not yet \nworshipped at Athens. \n\n" 2. Bd-zTjq can mean tinctor, dyer, as well as dipper or \nivasher. Some learned men have supposed, that, as wash- \nings or lustrations were common to all rites, it is not likely \nthat a distinctive name would be derived from this custom \nin this case. But they fail of explaining the other signifi- \ncation from dyeing, and have nothing bat hypothesis to \nbuild on. \n\n" 3. I have called the Baptae priests of Cotytto; probably \nit would be safer to call them worshippers, \'sacricolae.\' " \n\nAnother, and wholly independent response, is as follows : \n\n"1. I remark that the Baptx of Eupolis is not extant; \nthat a few lines, only, have been preserved, and that the \nfragments of Eupolis are to be found in Meineke\'s Frag- \nments of the Greek Comedians. \n\n" 2. The fid-rat were effeminates w T ho in many respects \nimitated women. They were accustomed to paint, or stain \ntheir faces and eyelids. It is sufficiently well known that \nthe play of Eupolis, called ( 0t Bd-rai, was written to expose \nand censure the licentiousness of such characters. \n\n" 3. The verb fid*\xe2\x84\xa2 is used freely in the sense of to dye, \nto stain, or to paint \xe2\x80\x94 so the Latin iingo. The application \xe2\x80\xa2 \n\n\n\n168 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nof the derivative noun in the play of Eupolis is to the effem- \ninate practice above mentioned. \n\n" 4. Considering the character of Cotytto, there can be \nlittle doubt that such is also the meaning of the word as \napplied to her priests \xe2\x80\x94 her priests were fid-rat. \n\n" 5. The annotator on Juvenal is correct when he gives \nfid*\xe2\x84\xa2) as equivalent in this respect to tingo. And tingo is \nquite correctly used in respect to both bathing and stain- \ning with color, and, like fid-ru, sometimes to paint." \n\n" In the note the Latin is modern, but the use of the \nword is classical. But the first part of the note concerns \na different thing from the latter part, and they are not to \nbe confounded. For the former of the two statements the \nauthority quoted is Politian, an eminent scholar of the fif- \nteenth century. In this note the two things mentioned \nare brought together, most likely, from the fact that \nJuvenal satirically presents the Baptse as worshippers of \nCotytto, with poetic if not with historical truth." \n\nProfessor Ewing {Essay on Baptism, Glasgow) makes \nthe following remark: \n\n" The fellows called fidxrat in Juvenal ii, 92, were not so \ncalled because they had been immersed in a dyer\'s vat \n(although they would have been well served had they been \nso treated), but because they were painted, from fan\xe2\x84\xa2 to \npaint, that is to lay on colors." \n\nKobinson, Greek Arch., p. 317. u Kotdtjjs, Cotytto, her \npriests were called ftd-rac, from fidxTzw, to paint." \n\nIt will be perceived that these eminent scholars, on the \nquestion, " To which branch of fid-Ta>, to dip or to dye, should \nfidxrat be traced?" are inclined to take different views; the \none leaning to dip, the other to dye; yet neither of them \ndisposed to insist upon the modal act of dipping, or the \ntechnical process of dyeing. \n\nIt is certain that the word might be traced to that side \nof fid-zee which exhibits the use of an uncolored fluid, and \nin its use exhibit only a lustral washing, which might be \nadministered as properly by sprinkling " warm water" as by \n\n\n\nTO IMBUE. 169 \n\ndipping into cold water; or it might be traced to that side \nwhere we find a colored fluid, while the facts showed, 1, a \nbapting, a dyeing without any dipping, the modal act hav- \ning passed into pressing, bruising, sprinkling, and thus \nentirely disappearing; or, 2, a bapting, a dyeing, icithout \nany color, but simply the communication of a quality or \ntrait of character. \n\nIf the statement of " dyeing without coloring" seems, \non its face, to be paradoxical, yet, it is no more so than the \nearlier change \xe2\x80\x94 "dipping by sprinkling." And, on con- \nsideration, it will be adjudged to be as philosophical as it \nis paradoxical. \n\nTo dye is to communicate a quality, the specific quality \nof color ; but there are qualities, devoid of color, which are \ncommunicable, and which from their nature are associated \nwith color, spots, stains, the communication of which qual- \nities, by the most facile extension of the word, might -be \nrepresented by dye. Dr. Gale says, " Stains on linen, or \nanything white, take from its beauty and clearness; so ill \nreports, &c, lessen and impair the purity of a man\'s repu- \ntation, and are to it what stains are to clean linen." Again, \nthere are qualities without color, such as Justice, Integ- \nrity, Honesty, which by their pureness are not conceived \nof by any color, but by the absence of all color, absolute \nwhiteness, which yet may, under the demands of language \nnecessitating the extension of the meaning of words, be \nspoken of by the term dye; quality is communicated, but \nnot of color. And the facts of usage, which have been \nalready considered, show that fid*\xe2\x84\xa2 was applied to the \nimaginary staining of Csesarism and to the unspotted \npureness of an absolute integrity. Under this usage the \nBaptre of Cotytto would be her priests who imbue with \nCotyttoism, or her disciples imbued by Cotyttoism. \n\nThe result of a general consideration of the elements \nentering into a determination of the meaning of the word \npd-rat, would present several words as worthy of thought- \nful consideration, among which appear \xe2\x80\x94 the dipped, the \nwashed, the dyed, the imbued. \n\n\n\n170 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nThe dipped. \xe2\x80\x94 Dr. Conant adopts this translation, yet \nnot without intimating that he was not entirely satisfied \nwith it. \n\nI am not aware of any special reason which can be \noffered in its support. If these persons dipped their \nbodies into water, or were clipped by one another, were \nthey the only persons who did so ? Is there any reason- \nable foundation for grounding a distinguishing title, sepa- \nrating them from all others, on such practice? But, again, \nif the practice of dipping the person, more or less, into \nwater gave origin among the Greeks to the title ftd-rac, \nwho shall, against the Greeks, set up the title {ia-xiaxm as \ndesignating a similar class of people? Unquestionably, \nthe proper word to use in such case is that of Bapters, and \nnot Baptists; and thus, again, we are brought, face to face, \nwith the error of our Baptist friends in attempting to con- \nvert a bapting into a baptizing, & dipping into an immersion. \n\nIf Dr. Conant is right in translating ftdxrai dippers, then \nBaptists are wrong in their name as denoting their mode \nof performing the Christian rite, and in attempting to \nsubstitute a bapting (Egyptian or Cecropian in form) for \nour most holy baptism. \n\nThe washed. \xe2\x80\x94 The opinion that a ivashing, in some \nform, is designated by this word seems to have met with \nconsiderable favor. \n\nThe annotator on Juvenal says that it is from pditretv, to \nwash, and that those who were initiated into these mys- \nteries were washed (tingebantur) with warm water. Valla \nexpresses the idea using madefacio, to make wet. \n\nThe Scholiast, who quotes Alcibiades, may be adduced \nas favoring a dipping, or wetting, or washing, according \nto our views derived from other quarters. It is obvious, \nhowever, that the opposition between fidnreq and fia~~iW; \nmakes the latter the stronger word. The difference is such \nas between dipping and mersing, drowning. \n\nIt does not follow, however, that the verb in the epi- \ngram is used in the same sense as the derivative noun in \n\n\n\nTHE DYED. 171 \n\nthe comedy; it may be a congruity purely verbal and not \nof sense which is designed. \n\nThe meaning, "washings, lustrations," has been ob- \njected to on the ground that these were common things, \nand could not be supposed to give rise to a distinctive \nname for any class of persons. \n\nThe force of this objection is tacitly admitted by the \nauthor of the first communication; but his reply is \xe2\x80\x94 no \nadequate, positive vindication of any meaning based on \ndyeing has been presented. If this should be done, the \nforce of the objection will have full operation. \n\nThe dyed. \xe2\x80\x94 This meaning, while having no less claim \nthan those preceding, on general grounds, can present a \nstronger special plea than either. The evidence that these \npersons did dye is more complete than that they did either \ndip or wash. Dyeing was a well-known characteristic of \nthis class of persons, and Juvenal expressly states this as \none of their practices. There is no difficulty, therefore, \neither from the word used, or from the facts of the case, \nin this particular, in employing "the dyed" as the trans- \nlation of 6t fid-rat. But there are two difficulties, notwith- \nstanding, which confront us. 1. All "dyed" persons did \nnot belong to the class spoken of, and therefore this mean- \ning lies under the same disability as these preceding. \nDyeing was a very common practice, as well as "dipping," \nand "washing," and, therefore, could not be employed to \ndenote a limited class among those to whom the character- \nistic was common. 2. While dyeing is spoken of as one \nfeature marking these people, it is only spoken of as one \namong many others, and those others immensely more \nimportant as elements of character. \n\nIt is impossible, therefore, that " the dyed ones" could \nexhaust the import of 6t ftdxrat; and whatever fitness it \nmight have in its bearing upon a single particular, and \nthat of the least possible importance, it cannot meet the \ncase except as regarded as a finger-board pointing on \ntoward that which it is unable of itself, directly, to ex- \n\n\n\n172 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\npress. But in that case it cannot retain its original limita- \ntion of meaning, but must attract to itself, by its association, \na newness and a fulness of meaning not before possessed. \nIn other words, the suggestion of color is lost, merged in \nother, more momentous, elements of character. \n\nThe imbued. \xe2\x80\x94 The vital element to be regarded in the \ninterpretation of this word is found in the fact that it \ndesignates a limited class of profoundly marked character. \nNeither "the dipped," nor "the washed," nor "the dyed," \nin their own proper meaning meets such a case. Un- \ndoubtedly either of these expressions might be modified \nand extended by appropriation; but in the case before us \nthe one most likely to be selected for such service is \nthe last. \n\nIt is quite possible that these Baptse introduced some \npeculiarity in the process or extent of the dyeing. Juvenal \nmay refer to this where, after describing the dyed eyebrow, \nhe adds, "pingitque trementes aitolleus oculos." The painting \nof the eyelids, or the eyelashes, may have been introduced \nby these persons, and thus made their class emphatically \n" the dyed or painted ones." But if such were the origin, \nand primary force of this term, it certainly did not con- \ntinue to have such narrowness of import. Juvenal, cer- \ntainly, did not so use the term. Eupolis, almost as certainly, \ndid not. Now, embody the idea in what one term we may, \nthe fact is certain that " the Baptse" were those, priests \nor disciples, or both, who were imbued with the spirit of \nCotytto, "the Goddess of Immodesty." \n\nWhatever Baptse may have originally expressed, or what- \never may have been the immediate exciting cause to give \nthis word such direction, it was appropriated to designate \na class of persons singularly debased and debauched ; ef- \nfeminate, voluptuous, and licentious \xe2\x80\x94 priests and people \nof a dancing courtesan, deified. \n\nIn view of a fact like this, it becomes a matter of very \nsecondary interest to know from which stem of pdnzu) this \nderivative proceeds, for in either case, as dipped or dyed, it \n\n\n\nTHE IMBUED. 173 \n\nmust accept the meaning which results from appropria- \ntion. Whatever may have been the original meaning of \nthe term " Methodist/\' or whatever may have been the \noriginal ground of its application, such original meaning \nand ground of application very speedily disappeared from \nthe appropriated title, "the Methodists." The same is \ntrue of the term Quaker as applied to "the Quakers." Can \nthere be any doubt that " 6t pdrcrac" is to be explained in \nthe same way, and that the Baptse designated neither "the \ndipped" into water, nor "the dyed" with blackened brows, \nbut those who were dipped deeply into, dyed in, imbued \nwith, Cotytto-ism? \n\nIn a word, this derivative expresses not quality of color, \nbut has passed on to express quality of character. \n\nThis investigation as to the meaning of ^dTzrw appears to \njustify the following conclusions: \n\n1. The severe limitation of this word to the two mean- \nings to dip, to dye, is no better grounded than the limitation \nto a single meaning, to dip. \n\n2. The natural and prevailing syntax used with fid-xta* to \ndip is to place the element, into which the dipping takes \nplace, in the accusative with &q; while {3d-Tw to dye, as nat- \nurally and prevailingly, requires the element, by which \nthe coloring influence is to be exerted, to be put in the \ndative, usually, without a preposition. \n\n3. Bd-ra), after having exercised its powers in communi- \ncating the quality of color through dyeing, staining, paint- \ning, passes on a step farther, and expresses the communi- \ncation of qualities which are devoid of color. \n\nAnd in this extreme development (3d--<D makes its nearest \napproach to assimilation with \xc2\xa7aTtriZ*a. \n\n\n\n174 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nTINGO. \nITS MEANING AND USAGE. \n\nThe meaning of tingo is so well understood and so uni- \nversally accepted, that the passages about to be adduced \nare not cited, so much, to show what is the meaning of \nthat word as to reflect light upon the more controverted \nGreek word. \n\nIf in any language we meet with a word whose usage in \na particular sense is questioned; and we find the corre- \nsponding word in another language clearly used in such \nsense; the usage, before doubtful, becomes greatly con- \nfirmed, if not established. The usage of j8dnru> and tingo is \nas nearly identical, under every phase, as the usage of two \nwords, in different languages, could well be. They mutu- \nally illuminate each other. A few passages will abun- \ndantly illustrate this statement. \n\nPKIMARY. \nTO DIP. \n\nSpongia in aceto tincta Celsus. \n\nSponges dipped in vinegar. \nTingunt faces in amne. Ovid. \n\nThey dip the torches in the river. \nPrimumque pedis vestigia tinxi. . \' . . . Ovid. \n\nAnd first 1 dip the soles of my feet. \nProtinus eductam navalibus sequore tingi, . . . . Ovid. \nAptarique suis pinnm jubet armamentis. \n\nAnd orders the vessel to be dipped in the sea. \nArctos metuentes sequore tingi Virgil. \n\nThe Bears fearing to be dipped in the sea. \nNee tingueret celeres plantas aequore. . . . Virgil. \n\nNor would she dip her swift feet in the sea. \n\nThese passages are too clearly self-interpretative to need \nany comment. \n\n\n\nTO WET. 175 \n\n" The Pine," or vessel, of which Ovid speaks as being \n" dipped in the sea" when launched, and which, then, \nrises again to its natural position on the water, shows that \nan object may be dipped, without being covered, when no \npart is specified. It illustrates, also, the limitation of the \nuse of tingo, as applied to ships, compared with mergo. \nTingo applies to the momentary descent of a vessel into \nthe water, beyond what is usual, in the launching, but is \nnever used to express a permanent, indefinite, or sunken \ncondition of a vessel. The same distinction obtaining as to \nthe usage of these words, in this respect, as in the case of \n\nPcLktw and Pa-riXa). \n\nThe act expressed by tingo is one which, evidently, car- \nries its object only temporarily and superficially within a \nfluid. The dipping, by launching, spoken of by Ovid, is \nillustrated by the following quotation : " On Saturday \nmorning the Dunderberg was launched. The launch was \nin all respects successful. The vessel went into the water \nbeautifully. She dipped some water, but immediately rose to \nher place and sailed handsomely to the middle of the chan- \nnel." Could you say she immersed some water? \n\n\n\nTO WET. \n\nTingere pascua rore Calpurnius. \n\nTo wet the pastures with dew. \n\nEt mero tinguet pavimentum Horace. \n\nAnd wet the pavement with wine. \n\nNeque enim celestia tingi ora decet lachrymis. . Ovid. \n\nNor is it becoming that celestial faces be wet with tears. \n\nNecdum flnctus latera ardua tinxit. . . . Virgil. \nNor yet has the wave wet his lofty sides. \n\nIn these, and like passages, to dip and to dye are impos- \nsible meanings. We are shut up to the translation to wet. \n\nThe instrumental case, without a preposition, is used as \nis the dative with par^m in its secondary meaning. \n\n\n\n176 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nTO WASH. \n\nNuda superfusis tingamus corpora lymphis. . . Ovid. \n\nLet us wash our naked bodies with water poured over them. \nLydia Pactoli tinguit arata liquor. . . . Propertius. \n\nThe river Pactolus washes the Lydian fields. \nQuia aqua, calid& tingebantur. . . . Juvenal (note). \n\nBecause they were washed with warm water. \n\nTO MOISTEN, TO ANOINT. \n\nTingere membra Pallade pingui Ovid. \n\nTo moisten the limbs icith rich oil. \nSsepe oculos memini tingebam parvus olivo. . . Perseus. \n\nI often moistened my eyes with oil. \n\nIn such passages, the nature of the case and grammatical \nconstruction unite to declare that the element is used as an \nagency; and to exclude the meanings, both, of dip and dye. \nYet, in the first passage, if we had not, by express state- \nment, the word by which the water was applied to the \nbody, we should be doomed to hear the exhaustless argu- \nment \xe2\x80\x94 " tingo, ftdTzro), fia-Ti\'Cw, mean to dip; naked bodies are \nsuitable objects for dipping; water is the very element for \nthe purpose; and there is a plenty of it \xe2\x80\x94 therefore, this was \na case of dipping." The passage from Ovid is utterly de- \nstructive to such reasoning. The dipping was by pouring! \nWhere the word expressive of the act is not stated it can- \nnot be found in tingo y or, in such cases, in any other cor- \nresponding word. \n\nWhether Gale would say of this passage \xe2\x80\x94 "dipped as it \nwere by pouring over;" or Carson \xe2\x80\x94 "it means in this pas- \nsage to dip just as much as any other, one mode of action \nbeing put, by calachrcsis, for another mode of action;" or \nFuller \xe2\x80\x94 it means dip, being an " extravagant and impas- \nsioned" utterance for " drench" \xe2\x80\x94 I do not know; but I do \nknow, that in like cases a sound discretion is, as absolutely, \nabandoned. \n\n\n\nTO DYE. 177 \n\nSECONDARY. \nTO DYE. \n\nTestes Gaetulo murice tin etas Horace. \n\nGarments dyed with Gcetulian purple. \nSuperciliura madida fuligino tinctum. . . . Juvenal. \n\nThe eyebrow dyed with moist soot. \nPhocaico bibulas tingebat murice lanas. . . . Ovid. \n\nDyed the absorbing wool with Phocean purple. \nTanta est decoris affectatio ut tingantur oculi quoque. Pliny. \n\nSuch is the longing for beauty, that the eyes, also, are dyed. \nTinguntur sole populi. Pliny. \n\nThe people are dyed by the sun. \n\nThe remark of Pliny, that the dyeing " the eyes" was \nsomething unusual, and regarded as a mark of extrava- \ngance, in connection with the statement of Juvenal that \nthe Baptse not merely dyed their brows but <c pa.intecl their \neyes," shows that there is some foundation for supposing \nthat their name originated, not in their practice of dyeing \nand painting as commonly practised; but in some pecu- \nliarity or extravagance; and, then, embraced a class distin- \nguished for all extravagance and immoral excesses. \n\nThe allusion to the "dyeing" of the body by the rays \nof the sun, is parallel with that by Achilles Tatius in speak- \ning of the East Indians : "Kal zypel to ew/xa too nopbq tt { v [iayfy \xe2\x80\x94 \n\nthe body takes the color of fire ." \n\nThe phraseology attaches no limit to the mode of dye- \ning. In no case is the object dyed represented as put into \nthe dyeing material. To dip the people in the sun would \nbe an embarrassing undertaking. The sun\'s rays d}^e by \nfalling on the body. Tingo does not mean to fall. Such \nword must be understood. So in evejw case where a con- \ndition or result is expressed, such expression exhausts the \nword making it; and it cannot, also, express the act by \nwhich the condition or result is effected. This is true \nof tingo, to dye, pd-zw, to dye, and of paxri\'ii) through all its \nusage. \n\n12 \n\n\n\n178 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nTO PAINT. \n\n\n\nTingit cutem Marinus, et tamen pallet. . . . Martial. \nMarinus paints his skin, and yet is pale. \n\n\n\nTO STAIN. \n\nYictima, pontificum securim, cervice tinguit. . . Horace. \n\nThe victim stains the axe of the priests with its neck. \nEt virides aspergine tinxerat herbas. . . . Ovid. \n\nAnd stained the green grass by the sprinkling of the blood. \nMusto tingue novo mecum dereptis crura. . . Virgil. \n\nStain with me the bared legs by the new wine. \n\nNone of these cases can, properly, be considered as \ncases of dyeing. They are, also, far removed from the \nform of dipping. The blow of an axe, the dropping of \nblood from a wound, the trampling of grapes, which, \nseverally, meets the demands of tingo, show that this \nword, like /5<*-rw, has ceased to make demand for modal \naction. Even " sprinkling" can meet the requirements \nof this modified dipping. \n\nConant translates " hcedufiei Try Se&dv rw Xaifiy pairriaai to \n\nicarptxu) \xe2\x80\x94 he desired to plunge his right hand in his father\'s \nneck." Horace suggests, " baptize, merse, cover with blood \nby his father\'s neck," since he says, "the victim stains the \naxe with its neck," not in it. \n\nTO TEMPER. \n\nEl Stygia candentem tinxerat unda Virgil. \n\nAnd tempered it glowing hot with Stygian water. \n\nThe act by which the sword was subjected to the pecu- \nliar influence of " the Stygian water" may have been that \nof dipping, and yet " tinxerat" not used for the purpose \nof expressing such act. When tingo is used to denote \ndyeing, although that result should be accomplished by \nthe process of dipping, the word which expresses the \n\n\n\nTO IMBUE OR TO TINCTURE. 179 \n\nresult cannot at the same time express the process. Tingo \ncannot express both to dye and to dip. When tingo ex- \npresses the tempering of metal, it cannot, also, express the \ndipping (if that be the process), any more than it can \nexpress sprinkling, if that be the process. \n\nTO IMBUE OR TO TINCTURE. \n\nIt has been already remarked, in speaking of this class \nof meanings in connection with /tarrw, that imbue was felt \nto be too strong a word to use in this case; but that, no \nbetter presenting, it was adopted. Perhaps tincture would \nbe preferable. These words are used interchangeably; yet \nthe latter has less breadth of application, and less power \nin its import, while it may express the communication of \nquality irrespective of color, with which it stands, verbally, \nrelated. \n\nIn making use of tincture, in this relation, it is regarded \nas thoroughly divorced from all coloring element. \n\nNon ego te meis immunem meditor tinguere poculis. Horace. \n\nI do not purpose to tincture you with my bowls. \nOrator sit tinctus Uteris Cicero. \n\nAn orator should be tinctured with letters. \nEomano sale tinge libellos Martial. \n\nTincture the writings with Roman salt. \nYis aurea tinxit flumen Ovid. \n\nThe golden potency tinctured the river. \nEt incerto fbntem raedicamine tinxit. . . . Ovid. \n\nAnd tinctured the fountain with the ambiguous virtue. \nCum dira libido .... fcrventi tincta veneno. . Perseus. \n\nFierce passion tinctured with fiery poison. \nIgnibus et sparsa tingere corpus aqua. . . Ovid, Fasti. \n\nTo tincture the body with fires and sprinkled water. \nHaec, quibus, tingendus est animus. . . . Seneca. \n\nThose things with which the mind must be tinctured. \nHoc fimo tinctum in scrobem demisit. . . . Seneca. \n\nThis tinctured with manure he put down into the trench. \n\n\n\n180 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nThis usage exhibits tingo (in common with j3d7zrio, having \nalready laid aside modality of act, dyeinghy sprinkling, &c.) \nas laying aside, now, dyeing, and imparting any quality what- \never. 1. The intoxicating quality of wine r to a limited extent \n2. The quality of transmuting into gold,, imparted to a \nriver. 3. The quality of transforming the human person, \ncommunicated to a fountain. 4. The quality of pureness \ngiven to the human body by "fire and sprinkled water." \n\nI am aware that tangere has been proposed as a substi- \ntute for "tingere;" but would retain tingere \xe2\x80\x94 1. As, ap- \nparently, the more difficult reading. If we attempt to \ntranslate this passage from the Fasti (iv, 790) by a mere \nreference to dip and dye, we are at once involved in inex- \ntricable embarrassment, and look around for succor. This \nis found, as supposed, in tangere; but before a readings \nwhich involves some difficulty, is rejected, would it not be \nwell to inquire, whether we may not have overlooked some \nusage of the word which will fully vindicate its retention \nin the passage ? \n\n2. As the much superior reading when fairly inter- \npreted. \n\nThere is nothing of elegance or fitness in u tangere" to \nmeet the demands of the passage. The most that can be \nsaid in its favor is, that it relieves, measurably and awk- \nwardly, of a difficulty from which no better way of escape \nwas seen. But the difficulty is of our own creation. \n"Fire and sprinkled water" do, unquestionably, according \nto ancient rites, purify the body. Let Ovid say this; let \ntingo express this; and what use have we for " tangere?" \n\n3. Such use of tingo is in proof. And this very passage \ngives evidence, not least in force and beauty y in its support. \nThe purifying quality which belongs to sacrificial fires, and \nto water ritually sprinkled, is exerted over the body which \nis brought within their influences; and they tincture it \nwith their characteristic quality, expelling impurity and \nimparting pureness. \n\n4. Those purified by u sprinkled water" would be, prop- \nerly, designated as \xe2\x80\x94 TinctL \n\n\n\nTO IMBUE OR TO TINCTURE, 181 \n\nTwo other passages may be sufficient to exemplify the \nmeaning under consideration. \n\nNon ilia, quibus perfundi satis est, sed haec tingendus est \nanimus- Seneca. \n\nNot those studies tcith ichich it is sufficient to be sprinkled, but \nthose with which the mind should be tinctured. \n\nThis passage is parallel with those from Antoninus; and, \nlike them, exhibits quality without color communicated to \nthe mind. We have, also, in this passage, incidental proof \nof this iuteq^retation, in the contrast between per/undo and \ntingo. The former, certainly, has nothing to do with \ncolor, and the word with which it is contrasted cannot. \niso one would contrast sprinkled water and a dyed color; \nnor can the contrast be between sprinkling and dipping, \nfor they both represent, in themselves, but a very feeble \neffect ; while Seneca means to contrast superficialness with \nthoroughness. The fitness of tingo to express what is \npenetrative and abiding, comes from its use in the sense \nof dyeing ; and after it has dropped the idea of color. \nHence per/undo denotes what is superficial; and tingo an \nincorporated quality. \n\n" Tinctum," in the second passage from Seneca, ex- \npresses the reception of the virtue of the manure by the \nolive tree. This is a case neither of dipping nor dyeing. \n\nQuam qui dona tulit Lernseo tincta veneno \n\nEubolcasque suo sanguine tinxit aquas. Ovid, Ibis. \n\nHe who bore the gifts tinctured with the Lerncean poison, \nAnd tinged the Eubozan waters with his blood. \n\nThis passage reminds us, forcibly, of the epigram on \nEupolis : \n\nThere is in both, the suffering of individuals \xe2\x80\x94 Hercules \nand Alcibiades; and in both, the death by drowning, of \nthe authors of that suffering \xe2\x80\x94 Lichas and Eupolis; and in \nboth, a play upon words expressive of the suffering and the \npunishment \xe2\x80\x94 Ovid employing the same word with differ- \n\n\n\n182 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nent meanings, and Alcibiades employing similar words "of \ndifferent meanings. \n\n" Dona tineta" were gifts neither dipped nor dyed in \nLernsean poison, but tinctured with it; the poisonous \nquality belonging to the Hydra had been imparted to the \ngarment; and it is this quality only which is brought into \nview. " Tinxit aquas" just as clearly means to dye, to \nimpart color, although, as a matter of fact, there was no \nsuch thing; the opportunity to introduce the same word \nto express death, in a rhetorical manner, is seized upon. \n\nSo, Alcibiades employs pd-ru and paizziZat, allied in origin \nand sound, to express widely different meanings, and de- \nsigning by their likeness in letter, to give emphasis to \ntheir unlikeness in meaning. Eupolis would dye him in \nplays; he would make Eupolis die in the sea. \n\nIt would be difficult to find two words, in different lan- \nguages, which, starting out with sameness of meaning, \ncontinue pari passu, through all their development to ex- \nhibit such thorough sameness, in all their changing phases, \nas do ftdTZTu) and tingo. \n\nAs they reciprocally illustrate each other, there is noth- \ning wanting to the most satisfactory determination of the \nmeaning of both. \n\n\n\nTO DIP. 183 \n\n\n\nTO DIP. \n\nITS MEANING AND USAGE. \n\nTo dip, in English, has a usage in marked correspond- \nence with that of ftd-xta), in Greek, and of tingo, in Latin. \nThere i3 not, indeed, a perfect accord in every shade of \nmeaning; there are some features of the Greek or Latin \nword which are not found in the English; and so, also, \nthere are features in the English word which do not appear \nin the Greek or Latin; still, with these peculiarities of \ndevelopment, the radical elements are the same. A few \nquotations will place this statement beyond all question. \n\nPRIMARY. \nTO DIP. \n\n\' The landscape gives the summit of a ridge of land that \nsuddenly dips from sight, in the mid distance, and rises \nagain in the form of a dim line of high ground drawn \nalong the horizon." \n\nRosa Bonheur. \n\n" The minister dipping the scoop into the water." \n\nChalmers. \n\n" The Lady Mayoress dipped the corner of the towel \n\ninto it," \n\nId. \n\n" Children should never he dipped more than once." \n\nSir A. Clarke \n\n"The dip of oars in unison awake, \nWithout alarming silence." \n\nGlover. \n\n" So was he dight \nThat no man might \n\nHym for a frere deny, \nHe dopped and dooked, \nHe spake and looked \nSo religiously." \n\nSir T. More. \n\n\n\n184 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n" And dipt them in the gable well, \nThe fount of Fame or Infamy. \nWhat well ? what weapon ? (Flavia cries.) \nA standish, steel, and golden pen !" \n\nPope. \n\n"Dipping her fingers in a little silver vase of rose-water." \n\nSir W. Scott. \n\n" The cloth thou dip\'dst in blood of my sweet boy, \nAnd I, with tears, do wash the blood away." \n\nShakspeare. \n\n" The fleet dipped their colors to the Queen\'s yacht." \n\nFete at Cherbourg. \n\n"Now wheeling and dipping toward it, as a butterfly." \n\nJapan Legerdemain. \n\n1. In the first of these examples showing the primary, \nliteral use of dip, we have the modal elements which enter \ninto this word distinctly stated : " Suddenly dips from \nsight and rises again." The " rising again" is essential to \na dipping in its primary use; in this it is radically distin- \nguished from jjlunge, dive, immerse, whelm, &c. \n\n2. The objects which are dipped claim attention. These \nare " a scoop," " the corner of a towel," " children," \n"oars," "head and shoulders," "pen," "fingers," "cloth," \n"flag," "bits of paper." None of these are selected cases. \nThe smallness of the objects is not matter of accident. It \nis a necessity resulting from the nature of the act. Every \nobject which is dipped must be brought out again from \nthe element into which it has been introduced. This \nrequires that the introducing power should have full mas- \ntery over its object; but, in all ordinary cases, it is human \nagency by which the act is performed, and the power \nemployed that of the hand or arm; consequently, the ob- \njects capable of being thus dipped are limited, and must \nbe of trivial size and weight, as indicated by the examples \nadduced. Thus the nature of the objects gives testimony \nto the nature of the act. \n\n\n\nTO WET. 185 \n\n3. Some modifications of usage require notice. Ordi- \nnarily a fluid element is present in a clipping; and, also, \nusually, the whole of an object is dipped when there is no \nlimitation expressed; but Sir Thomas More says that the \nfriar " doppcd and dookcd" \xe2\x80\x94 (dipped and ducked \xe2\x80\x94 " (top- \nped being from dippan, the characteristic i being changed \nto o"); he did not dip into any fluid element, but merely \nperformed the modal acts of depressing and elevating, not \nhis whole body, but his head and shoulders; still the act \nis legitimately attributed to the whole man, and although \nour Baptist friends put, ritually, but the head and shoulders \nunder water, it may lawfully, and of right can, be called \nonly a dipping. \n\nThe case from Pope, also, shows that the " steel and gold \npen" maybe said to be dipped in the standish, although an \nunexpressed part, only, is so dipped. The last two cases, \nals*o, exemplify a dipping in which the modal act of lower- \ning and raising a flag, or bits of paper by fanning, is per- \nformed without carrying the object into a fluid element. \n\nTO WET. \n\n" She fables not; I feel that I do fear \nHer words set off by some superior power ; \nAnd though not mortal, yet a cold shudd\'ring dew \nDips me all o\'er, as when the wrath of Jove \nSpeaks thunder." Comus. \n\n" She alway smyled, and in her hand did hold \nAn holy- water sprinckle, dipt in do we." Faere Queene. \n\nComus could not be dipped in dew under any circum- \nstances, much less in drof)s, formed by fright, on his own \nbody; we are, therefore, under necessity to understand \n" dip," here, as expressing not modal action but the effect, \nwetting, which is the usual consequence of dipping. This \nis, also, a fair and legitimate explanation of the second \ncase, although the necessity is not, in all respects, so abso- \nlute. To lean heavily on " in" to oppose this interpreta- \ntion, would be to lean on a reed, which might break and \n\n\n\n186 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\npierce the hand confiding in it. We speak of an object \nbeing "left out in the dew," although impossible that it \nshould be, literally, in the dew. Gideon\'s fleece was thus \n"in the dew," and so was Nebuchadnezzar; and the con- \ndition of wetness consequent on such exposure, may be \ndesignated by dip or tingo, or, as in the case of Babylon\'s \nking, by famo*. \n\nTO BATHE. \n\n" He walked to the river to take his customary dip." \n\nJudge Brackenridge. \n\n" The dip was over, and dripping with brine, they \n\nhastened back." Cape May Letter. \n\n"In whose waters Cardinal Wiseman was dipped." \n\nLetter from Wales. \n\nSince, in bathing, the act of dipping the body more or \nless, is of common and frequent occurrence; that word has \ncome to be familiarly employed to designate the whole \ntransaction; and is equally applicable to the bathing, \nwhether any, technical, act of dipping take place or not. \n\nTO EXAMINE SLIGHTLY. \n\n" Only to dip into a Hebrew or Greek Lexicon." \n\nBooth, i, 115. \n\n" I have just dipped into the works of such an author." \n\nId., i, 123. \n\n" We have occasionally dipped into the novels." \n\nEditorial. \n\n" He resolved to dip into it, but took no serious notice \n\nOf what he read." Col. Gardiner. \n\n" We first dipped into the pages of Whiston\'s Josephus." \n\nRev. Dr. Leyburn. \n\n" Dip into the work where you like." \n\nReview. \n\n" I have dipped into Aristotle and several other masters \n\nof the science." Rev. Dr. Thornwell. \n\n\n\nTO EXAMINE SLIGHTLY. 187 \n\nSuch usage is clearly based on the superficial entrance, \nand transitory continuance, of an object within a fluid ele- \nment. The effect upon an object, under such limitations, \nmust be trivial. To dip into a book is to make a super- \nficial and transient examination of its contents. There- \nfore, Dr. Thornwell commits no offence against modesty \nwhen he claims to have "dipped into Aristotle; 5 \' but mod- \nesty would never have allowed him to say of himself, " I \nhave been immersed in Aristotle and other masters of \nlogic." So vastly diverse is the import of the one word \nand the other. \n\nThere are some who seem disposed to insist that these \n" Lexicons" and "Novels," as, also, "Aristotle and his \nLogical Compeers," should represent pools of water, be- \ncause associated with "dip into\'\'\' Can such a demand \nescape the supremest ridicule? Grant that "dip into" is \nphraseology fashioned at the water-pool. "What then? \nDoes it follow, that when such phraseology is taken away \nfrom the pool and articulated with books and philosophers, \nthat it has a charm whereby they are incontinently meta- \nmorphosed into water-ponds? But, even let the experi- \nment be tried. Let lexicon, and novel, and Josephus, and \nAristotle, be turned into any fluid that may please best. \nAnd what next? Why, then, we are to " dip into" them. \nVery good. And let that be done. What next? Why, \nthen, I suppose we are to come out a little wet, which damp- \nness is (by the force of a lively imagination) to be converted \ninto a trifling amount of Lexicography, or Fiction, or Jew- \nish History, or Stagiritic Logic, as the case may be ! \n\nThis may be highly imaginative, yet be seriously defi- \ncient in homely common sense; which would teach us to \nmodify the meaning of the foreign phraseology to suit its \nnew relations; taking out of its original use what is de- \nmanded by its novel position, and allowing the remainder \nto tarry, still, by the water. Thus "dip into" is trans- \nformed into examine slightly. \n\n\n\n188 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nTO ENGAGE IN, MORE OR LESS DEEPLY. \n\n" For warrants are already issued out : \nI met Brutidius in a mortal fright : \nHe\'s dipt for certain, and plays least in sight." \n\nDryden. \n\n" When men are once dipt, they go on until they are \n\nStifled." L\' Estrange. \n\n" Full in the midst of Euclid dip at once, . \nAnd petrify a genius to a dunce. " Pope. \n\n" Dipping deeply into politics." Pursuits of Literature, \n\n"He was a little dipt in the rebellion of the Commons." \n\nDryden. \n\n" Who was secretly dipt in some papers of this kind." \n\nDunciad (note). \n\n" O\'wer mony great folks dipped in the same doings." \n\n. Sir W. Scott. \n\nQualifying adjuncts \xe2\x80\x94 "full in the midst," "deeply," \n" little,"\xe2\x80\x94 may increase, or diminish, that feebleness which, \nby nature, belongs to dip. The meaning exhibited in these \npassages is, obviously and essentially, different from the \npreceding. \n\nTO MORTGAGE. \n\n" Put out the principal in trusty hands, \nLive on the use 5 and never dip thy lands." \n\nDryden. \n\n"Lord T had dipped so deeply into his property." \n\nM?*s. Sherwood. \n\nMoney taken out of real estate, by mortgage, is called \ndipping the land. \n\nBy dipping with an empty vessel into a fluid we take \nout a portion of it; so, by a mortgage we take out a por- \ntion from our property and fill an empty pocket. \n\nThis idea is the ground of usage in the following \npassages. \n\n\n\nTO DYE. 189 \n\n\n\nTO TAKE OUT. \n\n" She dipped up water in her hands and gave her child." \n\nWyoming Massacre. \n\n" As they dipped their hand in Uncle Sam\'s pocket." \n\nCurrent Literature. \n\n" The ministers allowed the Prince to dip deep into the \nnational purse." id. \n\nAs the empty hand, hollowed, dipped into the stream, \nbrought up water; so the empty hand dipped into the \nnation\'s purse brings out gold! \n\nThis meaning the Greeks could readily understand; for \nit is involved in ra xcdmdi xqpia fidipat \xe2\x80\x94 dip honey with a pitcher, \nTheocritus y Idyl 5, 127; but its specific application \xe2\x80\x94 "never \ndip thy lands" \xe2\x80\x94 would, at first sight, prove embarrassing. \n\n\n\nSECOKDAKY. \nTO DYE. \n\n" Fancy, that, from the bow that spans the sky, \n\nBrings colors, dipp\'d in heaven, that never die." \n\nCowper. \n" And made the symbols of atoning grace, \n\nAn office key, a picklock to a place, \n\nThat infidels may prove their title good \n\nBy an oath dipp\'d in sacramental blood." Cowper. \n\n11 The middle parr \nSkirted his loins and thighs with downy gold \nAnd colors dipt in heaven ; the third his feet \nShadowed from either heel with feathered mail \nSky tinctured grain." Milton. \n\n" Over his lucid arms \nA military vest of purple flow\'d, \nLivelier than Melibaean, or the grain \nOf Sarra, worn by kings and heroes old \nIn time of truce; Iris had dipt the woof." Milton. \n\n11 DipH in the richest tinctures of the skies." \n\n" Or dip their pinions in the painted bow." Pope. \n\n\n\n190 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n" Dipt by cruel fate \nIn Stygian dye, how black, how brittle here!" \n\nYoung. \n\nu Thy wondrous love, \nThat arms with awe more awful thy commands, \nAnd foul transgression dips in seven-fold guilt." \n\nYoung. \n\nThe usage of dip, in the sense to dye, is not, by any means, \nso thoroughly incorporated in the English language, as is \nthat of fidx\xe2\x84\xa2 and tingo, in the same sense, in their re- \nspective languages.. The above quotations, however, will \nshow that such usage is distinctly recognized \n\n\n\nTO STAIN. \n\n"Dipt his hands in the blood of a noble Norman." \n\nSir W. Scott \n\n" The troops would not dip their hands in the blood of \n\ntheir countrymen." Tuscan Revolution. \n\n"He writes \nMy name in heaven with that inverted spear \n(A spear deep dipt in blood !) which pierced his side." \n\nYoung. \n\nThese cases are essentially different from " the oath dipt \nin sacramental blood." \n\n\n\nTO IMBUE \xe2\x80\x94 TO TINCTURE. \n\n" I\'ll make him dip my sword and pike for me in holy water." \n"And I have arrows mystically dipped.\' 1 \n\nColeridge. \n\nCustom dips men in as durable a dye as Nature." \n\nCur. Lit. \nu Old Bavius sits, to dip poetic souls, \nAnd blunt the sense, and fit it for a skull \nOf solid proof, impenetrably dull ; \nInstant when dipt, away they wing their flight." \n\nDunciad. \n\n1 1 Dipt me in ink. \' \' Pope. \n\n\n\nTO IMBUE \xe2\x80\x94 TO TINCTURE. 191 \n\n" For not to have been dipt in Lethe lake \nCould save the son of Thetis from to die; \nBut that blind bard did him immortal make \nWith verses dipt in dewe of Castalie." Spenser. \n\n" A person dipped in scandal." Warburton. \n\n"Holy water" has no color to impart to "sword and \npike;" but these are "dipt" for the purpose of securing, \nthereby, some quality or virtue ; they must, therefore, be im- \nbued or tinctured with some uncolored quality. The same \nis true of arrows " mystically dipped." They receive no \nquality which appeals to the eye, yet which is mysteriously \npowerful. Sword, and pike, and arrows, when taken out \nof the " holy water," still remain dipped, i. e. imbued, tinc- \ntured with the quality imparted; as, having been dipped \ninto a dye, they would remain bapted after removal out of \nthe dye. Colored, or uncolored, the quality communicated \nequally remains. The dye which "custom dips," is de- \nvoid of color; yet her tincture is as abiding as that of \nNature herself; for " Custom is second nature." \n\nPoetic souls, dipped by Bavius into Lethe, may be tinc- \ntured very deeply with stupidity; but, when most deeply \ndipt, they fail to show any color of the rainbow. \n\nSpenser alludes to the same transaction which gives \nbasis to Pope\'s poet-clipping; and compliments the genius \nof Homer as accomplishing that, by his \n\n" Verses dipt in dewe of Castalie," \n\nwhich the power of Lethe\'s waters had failed to effect. \nVerses, dipped in Castalian dew, are imbued with the spirit \nwhich reigns in that home of the Muses. \n\n" Holy water," " Lethe lake," " dewe of Castalie," are \nsupposed to possess characteristic qualities, which they \nimpart to objects dipped into them in fact, or by imagin- \nation, or only of verbal suggestion; just as dye-water parts \nwith its coloring quality under like circumstances. \n\nThis is a modified use of dip, and most justifiable ex- \ntension of its meaning, in which is repeated the usage of \nfid-ret) and tingo. \n\n\n\n192 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nAPPROPRIATION. \n\n\n\n" Kelenting forms would lose their power or cease, \nAnd e\'en the dipped and sprinkled live in peace." \n\nCowper. \n\n" The clipped/\' and not the immersed, is the title to be \nappropriated to those who receive the Christian rite by \ndipping the upper part of the body into water. \n\nThe jSaTtrac and the fiaTZTiarai are separated by an immense \ninterval. \n\n" THE DIPPERS," alias SNUFF RUBBERS. \n\nThere is another appropriated use, not so generally un- \nderstood, and which is thus explained : " It may be that \nsome of your readers are not familiar with the practice of \n\' dipping.\' I will say, therefore, that a dipper is one who, \nhaving separated the fibres of a hickory stick by chewing \nit, uses it, when wet with saliva, as the means of convey- \ning snuff from the family box or pouch to the mouth." \n\nHon. W. D. Kelley. \n\nWhatever the pdnrai of Eupolis may have been, they \ncertainly differed from these " dippers;" the nearest point \nof resemblance, probably, being that the latter dyed their \nmouths with snuff, and the former dyed their eyes with \nsoot In both cases, the origin of the name ceases to con- \ntrol its meaning, and becomes expressive of habit and \ncharacter. \n\nRESULTS. \n\nMaking no claim to having exhausted the great variety \nof usage which characterizes these words, enough has been \nexhibited to show: \n\n1. Bd\'xoi signifies \xe2\x80\x94 Primarily. (1.) To dip, (2.) to moisten, \n(3.) to wash. \n\nSecondarily. (1.) To dye, (2.) to stain, (3.) to paint, (4.) to \ngild, (5.) to temper, (6.) to tincture, without coloring. \n\n\n\nRESULTS. 103 \n\n2. Tingo signifies \xe2\x80\x94 Primarily. (1.) To dip, (2.) to wet, (3.) \nto moisten, (4.) to wash. \n\nSecondarily. (1.) To dye, (2.) to stain, (3.) to paint, (4.) \nto temper, (5.) to tincture, without coloring. \n\n3. Dip signifies \xe2\x80\x94 Primarily. (1.) To dip, (2.) to wet, (3.) \nto bathe, (4.) to examine slightly, (5.) to engage in, (6.) to \nmortgage. \n\nSecondarily. (1.) To dye, (2.) to stain, (3.) to tincture, \nwithout coloring. \n\nA glance at this statement shows that the Greek and \nLatin word has found fuller development in the direction \nof dyeing than of dipping ; while the English word has \nreceived larger development under the leadership of the \nact without the element of color. \n\n2. Each of these words expresses, primarily, an act \ncharacterized by the severest limitations in all directions. \nIt is limited in force ; it is limited in the extent of its fluid \npenetration ; it is limited in the duration of continuance \nwithin the fluid; it is limited as to its objects, and it is \nlimited, by the necessities of the case, in the influence \nwhich is exerted. \n\nAn invigorating element is introduced by the incorpora- \ntion of color in the secondary meaning; the force of which \nstill remains when color is merged in simple quality. And \nit is in this direction, only, that it makes any real approach \ntoward sympathy with the usage and essential power of \n\n\n\n3. One word reigns, unchanged, through all these Greek \nand Latin passages. This should be kept in distinct \nremembrance while we arc told that ySa-r^ has but \none invariable meaning, and is most easy of translation. \nIf both these statements be correct, then that "readily \nfound" Anglic representative can be carried without change \n"through all Greek \'literature." This has never been \nattempted. A like doctri re was long pronmlged respect- \n\n13 \n\n\n\n194 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ning fidTerw, and maintained in utter disregard of sentiment \nand construction. \n\nIt is obvious, that if the Greeks used the same word to \nexpress essentially different ideas, that they must have \ndepended upon the sentiment expressed, and upon a modi- \nfied grammatical structure, to throw light upon the mean- \ning. " The berry pressed dips the hand." " Drops falling \non garments dip them." "Dip other colors." These were \nphrases employed by the Greeks, but wholly unintelligible \nin the primary sense of dip; and yet by a metaphoric \ntranslation, and by a cloud raised under the name of \n"figurative language," they were compelled, by contro- \nversialists, to bear the badge of the original dip. \n\nSevere pressure has constrained the admission of a sec- \nondary meaning; and with this admission has come a \nmodified translation, and grammatical structure is allowed \nits rights; so that the lake is no longer "dipped in the blood \nof the frog," bat " dyed by it." And while the Greeks \nstill say that " garments are dipped (bapted) by sprinkled \ndrops;" their translators no longer insist on their being \ndipped in them, but are content that they should be dyed \nby them. We, now, ask them to go a step farther, and \nadmit that there may be a bapting without either a dip- \nping or a dyeing, and, as well by sprinkling, as by any \nother mode. And, there, we will rest. \n\nA similar pressure, from sentiment and syntax, has com- \npelled some of the leading Baptist writers to revolutionize \ntheir position, as to an invariable act of dipping in paacriCw, \nthus, endeavoring to spike the grammatical guns whose \nfire could no longer be endured; while they held on to a \ndipping, "sometimes, and pretty commonly." To this we \ncannot assent; but ask a full surrender, or the endurance \nas well as may be, of continued syntactical bombardment. \n\nTen or a dozen words are required to represent pditTw. \nWill one answer for pa-irci\'tol \n\nThe Latins, like the Greeks, used but one word in all \nthose passages, where we employ in translating, ten times \nas many. \n\n\n\nRESULTS. 195 \n\nThey said: "Dip the pastures with dew;" "Dip the \npavement with wine;" "Dip the face with tears;" "Dip \nthe body by water poured over it;" "Dip the limbs and \neyes with oil;" "The sacrificial victim dips the axe with \nits neck;" "Dipped the grass by sprinkling;" "Dip you \nwith my bowls;" "Dipped the river by a quality commu- \nnicated to it;" "Dipped the fountain" by similar means; \n"Dipped the sea by his blood;" "Dipped the body by \nsprinkled water." \n\nThese are remarkable phrases, and will repay close \nstudy. We shall have need of some of them hereafter. \n\nDip, in English, shows how sentiment and syntax must \nbe our guide when a word is used out of its ordinary sense. \n\n"Dew dips me all over;" "Dip into Aristotle;" "Dip- \nped in those doings;" "Dip thy lands." These are phrases \nwhich, at once, say, "Lookout for some other than the \nordinary meaning." \n\nIf we meet with precisely similar phrases in connection \nwith fiannXo, who can chide us for rejecting the iron clamp \n\xe2\x80\x94 " one meaning through all Greek literature?" \n\n\n\nPART III. \n\nIMMEESE. \nITS MEANING AND USAGE. \n\n"We now proceed to examine the meaning of * c immerse," \nas determined by general usage. This word is used, at \nwill, by Baptist writers, as the equivalent of dip. They do \nnot, indeed, employ these words, indifferently, in all cases; \nthis they could not do; but where they must, they do dis- \ncriminate, without any acknowledgment of the necessity; \nand where they may, without too open incongruity, there \nthey confound and interchange. \n\nWhether "immerse" be coincident in meaning with \n/?a7rrw, tingo, and dip, or whether it be separated from them \nby a line, clear, deep, and radical, the sovereign law of \nusage must determine. To that we appeal, and by its \ndecree will we loyally abide. \n\nMEANING. \n\nTo immerse \xe2\x80\x94 \'primarily. \xe2\x80\x94 To cause to be in a state of \nintusposition (enveloped on all sides by,, ordinarily, a fluid \nelement), without any limitation as to the depth of posi- \ntion, time of continuance, force in execution, or mode of \naccomplishment. \xe2\x80\xa2 \n\nAll of these points are the contradictories of those which \nhave been shown to belong to dip. \n\nThey are no less alien from the meanings shown to be- \nlong to the Latin lingo, and to the Greek /Scctttw. \n\nThe usage of these words is too clear, too bold, too \nabounding, to allow of any doubt. \n(196) \n\n\n\nINTUSPOSITION. 197 \n\nPRIMARY. \nINTUSPOSITION. \n\n" The globe was in a state of immersion n much longer \ntime than forty days." \n\n" The next objection, that there is not enough of water \non the earth to submerge it to the depth necessary to cover \nthe tops of the highest mountains." \n\n" The waters on the earth and under the earth could be \nso expanded by the rarefaction of the atmosphere, as to \nsubmerge the earth." \n\nThese three passages all relate to the universal deluge. \nThey speak: 1. Of the condition of the object immersed; \nit was " a state of immersion." 2. Of the time of con- \ntinuance ; " a much longer time than forty days." 3. Of \n"the depth" of the immersed object below the surface; \nthe highest point being " fifteen cubits" beneath the roll- \ning billows. 4. Of the mode in which it " could" be \naccomplished; " the waters could be expanded so as to \nsubmerge the earth." 5. Of the object immersed; "the \nglobe." \n\nNow, I would ask: 1. Was it ever said of an object \ndipped that it was in "a state" of dipping? 2. Was the \ncontinuance of a dipping ever known to last "much longer \nthan forty days?" 3. "Was a dipping ever known to put its \nobject from fifteen cubits to half as many miles below the \nsurface? 4. Was a dipping ever known to be effected by \n"the expansion" of the fluid until it surmounted its ob- \nject? 5. Does dip number in the catalogue of objects \nwhich it takes up and places momentarily beneath the \nsurface, such objects as this great "globe" which we in- \nhabit? \n\nThe English language will be searched in vain for any \nsuch phraseology. The nature of the case does not admit \nof it. Dip does not put its object into "a state;" but \nmerely carries it into, and out of, a fluid element without \nallowing it to gain any status in it. How vital this dis- \n\n\n\n198 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ntinguishing difference is, in itself, is obvious; that the \nconsequences, flowing from such diverse starting-points, \nmust forever continue diverse, is no less obvious. \n\nBooth thinks that "Baptist sentiment and practice is \nmade ridiculous " by the use of "plunge;" would the finger \nof ridicule be pointed any the less sharply, if Booth and \nhis friends would test their principles by employing dip to \nexpress such cases of \n\n\n\n"A solid when immersed in a liquid becomes lighter by \nthe weight of the fluid displaced." \n\n"Representing a globe half immersed in water." \n\nThese statements necessitate a continuance of the state \nof intusposition. It is only as an object continues in a \nstate of mersion that it becomes lighter. It is impossible to \nsubstitute dip for "immerse." The sentiment is, thereby, \nmade untrue or impracticable. It is untrue that a dipped \nobject is any the lighter for having been dipped; and it is \nimpracticable to weigh an object which is, in transitu, going \nthrough the process of a dipping. \n\n\n\n" Not rest until he found the persons who caused his \nimmersion in the dungeon." \n\n" We descended to the house, whence we emerged, on \nfoot, upon the beautiful grounds." \n\n" The party emerged from the vehicle that I had driven \nup." \n\nCan you speak of a man shut up in a dungeon as being \ndipped into it ? Can you speak of a company shut up in a \nhouse as being in a state of dipping? or, when coming \nforth from it, as dipping out of it? \n\nCan you say of a party inclosed in a carriage that they \nare in a state of dipping? or, when they alight, that they \ndip out of it? \n\nI do not ask, whether such phraseology is unusual; but \n\n\n\nINTUSPOSITION. 199 \n\nI ask, whether it is not absurdly impossible in the natifre \nof the terms? \n\nBut it is most intelligible, most legitimate, and most \nnakedly true, that a man who is inclosed within the walls \nof a deep, dark " dungeon " is in a state of mersion. And it \nis no less true, that a company shut up in a house, or \ncarriage, are also in a state of mersion; from which they \n" e-merge " in passing into the open air. \n\nWhere is the ground for equivalence between dip and \nimmerse? \n\n\n\n" Columbus is submerged, and the inhabitants are mov- \ning about in boats." \n\n" The Great Eastern is submerged in steam blowing off \nfrom no less than twelve escape pipes." \n\nWas the town of Columbus, or the Great Eastern, dip- \nped? Would it be possible to say that they were, and to \ntalk English? \n\n\n\n*o\' \n\n\n\n" After sixty years\' immersion the gold looks as fresh \nas if it had been taken out of the bank." \n\n" Report in regard to the submerging of the Atlantic \ncable." \n\n" Some authors of great name have maintained that this \npart of the globe had but lately emerged from the sea." \n\nIs it customary to speak of a ship and her freight of gold \nbeing dipped in the ocean for the space of " sixty years?\'\' \n\nIs dip in English, any more than tivgo in Latin, or \nfidxTio in Greek, ever applied to the loss of a vessel at sea? \n\nOf the thousand times ten thousand speaking the Eng- \nlish language, and who have spoken of the laying of the \nAtlantic cable, has there been one man, woman, or child, \neducated or uneducated, in Great Britain or America, who \nhas ever spoken about "dipping" the Atlantic cable to the \nbottom of the Atlantic Ocean? \n\nIf a "part of the Earth" ha3 remained since the morn- \ning of creation, until " lately," covered by the sea, can it \n\n\n\n200 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nbe said to have been " clipped" all that time? " Immersed" \nit may have been for five thousand years, or five times Hve \nthousand, in the depths of the sea; but no one will say \nthat it could, thus, have been dipped, except he should wish \nto make "the sentiment" (or himself) "ridiculous." \n\n\n\n"The lamp extinguished, he was immersed in total \ndarkness." \n\n" Entreaties for aid, being drowned partly in the con- \ncave of the steel cap in which his head was immersed, and \npartly by the martial tune." \n\nDoes the extinguishing of the flame of a lamp, and con- \nsequent envelopment in darkness, expound the modal act \nof dipping? It does expound mersion. \n\nIs the placing "a steel cap" on the head an exemplifi- \ncation of the modus requisite to dip the head? Thus the \nhead is "immersed." \n\nWhen a candle blown out can dip a body (without mov- \ning it a hair\'s-breadth) in darkness ; and when moving a \n"cap" to invest the head, can be said to dip the unmoved \nhead in the cap; then, we may be ready to hear what can \nbe said about the equivalence of dip and "immerse." \n\n\n\n" Rolling over the edge of the moat was immersed in \nthe mud and marsh." \n\n" A box on the ear overthrew the falconer into the cis- \ntern; his wrath was noways appeased by the cold immer- \nsion." \n\n" Disgorging the sea- water which he had swallowed \nduring his immersion." \n\nA man leaping over the wall of a town, and rolling into \nthe mud and marsh of the moat, does not present a good \npicture of a dipping; either as to the mode or the quantum \nof force. \n\nA knock-down blow, tumbling a man into a cistern of \n\n\n\nINTUSPOSITION. 201 \n\nwater, is as little orthodox in these particulars. To effect \nan immersion they will answer quite well; but another \nfashion and a gentler mode would be required by most \nwho sought a dipping. \n\nI call attention to the fact that these cases of mersion \nlasted but a short time. There is nothing in the nature \nof a mersion which requires that it should be protracted ; \nbut when it is most brief in its continuance, it is still, \nessentially, distinguished from a dipping. It is so in man- \nner and intention. In both these respects the above cases \ndiffer from a dipping. A man who falls into the mud \ncannot be said to dip himself into it; nor can a man who \nreceives a blow on the ear and falls into the water be said \nto be dipped into it by the striker. \n\nIt is especially to be noted, that in neither of the above \ncases does the immerser take out the object immersed. \nThere was no limitation of the mersion on the part of the \nmerser. Any of these parties might have continued to be \nmersed to the present hour, except they had, otherwise, \nrecovered themselves from their mersed condition. \n\nIt is not so in a dipping. The dipper always intends to \nput the object dipped only momentarily into the element; \nand does recover it, himself, out of it. Unless this is done \nit is not a case of dipping. \n\nThe mere brevity of the mersion is no rational ground \nfor confounding the act of dipping and the state of mersion. \n\nA man who falls overboard or is knocked overboard, as \nin one of the above cases, and is speedily recovered from \nthe sea, may be said to have been immersed; he cannot be \nsaid to have been dipped. A bucket which is let down \nfrom the same vessel, into the sea, for the purpose of pro- \ncuring water, is properly said to be dipped into the sea. \nThe time of continuance in the sea by the man and the \nbucket may be the same; and yet, by reason of the differ- \nences indicated, the only legitimate designation of the one \nis by immersion, and of the other by dipping. \n\nIt is, however, by the occurrence of these occasional \n\n\n\n202 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ncases of brief immersion, that the semblance, and only the \nsemblance, of justification, for the confounding of two \nterms whose broad usage is so diverse, can exist. \n\nAnd why wish to establish such confusion? Why not \nbe content to call " a spade a spade," and a dipping a dip- \nping ? The natural and unavoidable answer is: There is a \nnecessity for confounding dip and immerse, because of the \nerror which confounds fidxTw and fta-T^w. Dipping has been \nintroduced into the Christian ordinance under the plea \n(honestly meant no doubt), that " the word of inspiration \ndemanded it;" but, on examination, the Greek word for \ndipping is not to be found anywhere in the inspired record! \nThen the position is assumed, that " the word that is there \nmeans the same thing." It is shown, however, not to mean \nthe same thing; but to have a usage perfectly antipodal. \nThen there is an attempt to mix, " through-other," this dip \nand immerse; and by discarding dip from the designation \nof the mode of administration, and by the use of immerse, \nto make some claim to the usage of /Ja^-rt\'Cw, from which \nusage dip is wholly excluded. \n\nWe cannot allow this mixing up of iron and clay. The \nmagic stone of truth smites it, and it crumbles into its \ndiscordant elements. If the performance of a dipping be \ninsisted upon, we insist on its being called just what it is \n\xe2\x80\x94 a dipping \xe2\x80\x94 and not an immersion, just what it is not. \n\nINTUSPOSITION WITH INFLUENCE. \n\nThe cases of mersion, now stated, are not such as are \naccompanied with any marked influence on the object \nmersed. They were designed to show the radical idea \nof intusposition without limitation of depth, mode, force, \nor time. It is obvious, that any object so situated must \nbe exposed to the fullest influence of the encompassing \nmedium. The result of such influence will depend on \nthe nature of the object exposed to it. A rock, and a bag \nof salt, a human being and a fish, will be very differently \naffected by encompassing waters. \n\n\n\nINTUSP0SITI0N FOR THE SAKE OF INFLUENCE. 203 \n\nOne or two passages will suffice to present this aspect \nof the case. \n\n" His horse .... \nBushed to the cliff, and, having reached it, stood. \nAt once the shock unseated him : he flow- \nSheer o\'er the craggy barrier: and immersed \nDeep in the flood, found, when he sought it not, \nThe death he had deserved, and died alone." \n\n"At length, when all had long supposed him dead, \nBy cold submersion, razor, rope, or lead." \n\n"But among other nations \' submersion\' (which is the \nFrench for \' drowning\'), leads off as the most fatal of \naccidents." \n\nWhat would be thought of the man who would intro- \nduce dipping into these passages as an equivalent? Neither \ndip, tingo, nor pdirru> drowns any one. Mersion does, and \ndoes by necessity of its nature, unless deliverance comes \nfrom some ab extra influence. \n\n\n\n"The clouds .... \nMore ardent as the disk emerges more." \n\nThe influence upon the sun of an immersion within the \nclouds is to quench the effulgence of his rays. \n\n" The river flows redundant; \nThen rolling back, in his capacious lap \nIngulfs their whole militia, quick immersed." \n\nThe mersion is destructive. The mode is by the water \ncoming over its object. A movement by which a dipping \ncannot be effected. " Ingulf" is the equivalent of " im- \nmerse." Is it ever the equivalent of dip f \n\nINTUSPOSITION FOR THE SAKE OF INFLUENCE. \n\nThis is a development quite in advance of the other, \nwhile it furnishes a stepping-stone for still farther progress. \n\n\n\n204 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n" Then on the warm and genial earth, that hides \nThe smoking manure, and o\'erspreads it all, \nHe places lightly, and, as time subdues \nThe rage of fermentation, plunges deep \nIn the soft medium, till they stand immersed. 71 \n\nSo Cowper describes the formation of a hotbed, and the \nmersion of seeds within it, for the purpose of bringing \nthem within its full influence. In this instance the in- \nfluence is not destructive, but vitalizing. \n\nThe passage, also, affords opportunity to see the dis- \ncriminating difference between dip and "plunge." Plunge \ndoes not bring its object out of the element into which it \ncarries it. Dip does. These words are never truly equiv- \nalent. Immerse agrees with "plunge," in not bringing \nout the object which it has caused to be introduced; but \nit differs from it, i-n that the latter term is limited as to the \nform of its action, and the nature of its force, and belongs \nto those words which are immediately expressive of action; \nand not of state or condition. \n\nThis is clearly exhibited in the above passage, where \nplunge expresses the act by which the condition denoted \nby "immersed" is secured. And as here, so everywhere \nthere is some satellitic word of action attendant on im- \nmerse (expressed or understood), to perform its behests. \n\n"Whelm\'d under our dark gulfs those arms shall lie, \nThat blaze so dreadful in each Trojan eye; \nAnd deep beneath a sandy mountain hurl\'d, \nImmersed remain this terror of the world. \n\nThese his cold rites, and this his watery tomb." \n\nBy such mersion it was sought to destroy Achilles. \nThe element, again, moves to invest its object, in contra- \ndiction of Dr. Carson\'s inconsiderately maintained posi- \ntion, that immerse must always dip. The act causative \nof the state of mersion is, here, " hurl\'d," as before it was \n" plunge," and, yet previously was, " roll back," showing \nhow absolutely free is immerse from all form of act. \nWhatever can effect a condition of mersion, immerse does \nnot express but accepts as servitor. \n\n\n\nIMMERSED IN FURS. 205 \n\n\n\n"IMMERSED m FURS. 77 \n\nThe influence sought to be secured by this mersion was \nsuch warmth as might be, thus, attained in the Polar \nregions. So says Dr. Kane. lie, probably, had good \nreason for his preference of a mersion in furs, over a dip. \n\nThe cases of mersion, thus far considered, have been all \nprimary and physical. They have all been marked by \ninfluence in some aspect. \n\n1. Capability for influence, rather than its actual exer- \ncise. 2. Controlling influence exercised, but without de- \nsign in securing it. 3. Mersion sought for the sake of its \ncontrolling influence. This influence we have seen to be \nmost varied in character, but always controlling in power. \nWe have, also, seen that the state of physical mersion is \ninduced in ways and by forces most various. And, farther, \nthat the element may come to the object, a& well as the \nobject be brought to the element. \n\nWe have, also, seen that the mersing substance may be \n"furs," "clouds," "soft earth," "steel cap," "house," \n"carriage," " dungeon walls," &c, &c, as well as water. \n\nR~ow, all these diversities uniting together in the unity \nof controlling influence, will prepare us, in passing from \nthe consideration of physical mersions, to those which are \nnot physical, to see a great variety of development as to \nforces and forms of agencies, while there will, everywhere, \nbe present a resultant controlling influence. This is the \ngrand resultant product of physical mersions. To secure \nthis result as the end (and not the mersion), mersion has \nbeen sought. \n\nWhere no mersion can be secured, in the nature of the \ncase, but where it is desired to express the controlling \ninfluence of any person or thing; it will be natural to \nemploy such form of phraseology as is expressive of a \nmersion, although no mersion is designed, even in imagina- \ntion, or, it may be, is conceivable, though we should tax \nour imagination to the uttermost. \n\nWe will see that this, in fact, has been done. \n\n\n\n206 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nINTUSPOSITION, VERBAL, EXPRESSING INFLUENCE. \n\nForms of expression which are designed to express con- \ntrolling influence; and which take their form from physical \nmersion as the source of such influence; may be regarded, \nsometimes, as properly figurative; hut, most commonly, as \na direct expression of the thought without any design to \npresent it indirectly through a picture of a physical trans- \naction. \n\nThe following passages may he regarded as designed \npicturings : \n\n" The world was fast sinking into a sea of drunkenness; \nand the only wonder is that it was not entirely submerged \nunder the flood." \n\n" The tide of Southern bank suspension, in its sweep \nnorthward, submerged Philadelphia, but was stopped at \nNew York." \n\nBut the following everyday phrases are not to be inter- \npreted as formal figure ; but as organic forms springing from \na physical parentage whose lineaments they clearly reveal \nin their structure. The grosser elements of their original, \nhowever, they do not retain; but only an unsubstantial \nform, embodying, still, the vital spirit of controlling in- \nfluence. These phrases, therefore, are to be regarded as \norganic unities, having a common life, and not as disjunct \nwords. \n\n" We are at last immersed in the horrors of civil war." \n\n" Kings in the plenitude of power, if immersed in ignor- \nance and prejudice, are less free than sages in a dungeon \nand bound with material chains." \n\n" "No longer immersed in the ignorance of heathenish \nidolatry." \n\n" The Irish were a lettered people, while the Saxons \nwere still immersed in ignorance." \n\n" Some of the places were so completely immersed in \nPopish darkness as not to present the best points for mis- \nsionary effort.\'\'\' \n\n\n\nINTUSPOSITION, VERBAL, EXPRESSING INFLUENCE. 207 \n\n"Finding no foundation for a rational liberty on the \nemersion of the country from the corruption and tyranny \nof centuries, strove to save it by terrorism." \n\n" Some time before commenced the pecuniary embar- \nrassments of Sir Walter Scott, and his convulsive struggles \nto emerge- from them." \n\n" Instead of becoming immersed in secularity." \n\n" Of Calvary \xe2\x80\x94 that bids us leave a world \nImmersed in darkness and in death, and seek \nA better country." \n\nIn all these passages, " immersed" is combined with \n"ignorance, prejudice, tyranny, corruption, secularity, Po- \npish darkness," &c, for the simple and single purpose of \ndeveloping, in the completest manner, that influence which \nis appropriate to its adjunct "In" is merely the formal \nvinculum necessary to the case; and is not to be pressed \nupon as though it made demand for a picture to be wrought \nout by the imagination. "Immersed in \xe2\x80\x94 ignorance," di- \nrectly and prosaically declares that those spoken of are \nunder the controlling influence of ignorance. Or, we must say, \nthat " under," in this expression, demands figure, and \npictures some poor wretch as crushed beneath some -huge \nweight. Where, then, shall we find any direct channel for \nthe utterance of our thoughts? \n\nIt is not the case, however, that " immerse," used with \nan unphysical adjunct, does necessarily express influence \nexerted over its object. We have seen that immersed \nobjects are variously affected according to their nature; \nand that some (as a rock), when immersed, are affected \nonly as occupying a position within the encompassing \nelement. This affords the basis for the use, under appro- \npriate circumstances, of immerse as simply indicating the \nfact of encompassing sources of influence, without their \npower being felt. \n\nThis usage is exemplified in the following passage: \n\n" The missionary lives immersed in the sins of heathen- \nism that he may raise them from death to a life of right- \neousness." \n\n\n\n208 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nThe missionary may, like Lot in Sodom, be "vexed with \nthe filthy conversation" of the depraved around him; but, \nas the rock repels the encompassing billows, so he, while \n"immersed in the sins of heathenism," does, by divine \ngrace, remain uncontaminated by their corrupting power. \n\n"Immersed in sins" would, ordinarily, imply being \nunder their full, morally corrupting influence; but applied \nto the preacher of the gospel encompassed by the immo- \nralities of heathenism, it has no such meaning. The fact \nof intusposition, only, is indicated. \n\nINFLUENCE WITHOUT INTUSPOSITION. \n\n" Immerse " does not always bring into view intusposi- \ntion, either in the limited measure, or as expressive of the \nideas now considered. \n\nThe physical form ceases to be even a transparent shadow \nthrough which influence is made visible. Both the form \nof the shadow, and the nature of the influence, disappear \ntogether. \n\nIt is quite common to use "immerse" in phraseological \ncombinations in which it expresses the most thorough \nengagedness; the most strenuous mental effort. If an ex- \nplanation of the ground of this usage were asked, there \nmight not be common consent shown in the reply; but \nthis would only indicate how far, and how completely, the \nusage has been removed from the physical fact. The \nimage has been worn off from the coin by long and varied \nhandling. \n\nPerhaps the passage, already quoted, respecting Sir Wal- \nter Scott\'s pecuniary embarrassment, may guide to the true \nsolution. He being " immersed in pecuniary embarrass- \nment," made "convulsive struggles" to extricate himself \nfrom it, and succeeded. Any man physically immersed \nmust use all effort to save himself or perish. " Immerse" \nmay thus come to be intimately associated with the effort \nnecessary to escape from such position ; and, then, with \nmental effort without such appendages. The use of " im- \n\n\n\nINFLUENCE WITHOUT INTUSPOSITION. 209 \n\nmersion," without any immersion, by Sir Walter Scott him- \nself, may be here, appropriately, introduced : \n\n" The boat received the shower of brine whieh the ani- \nmal spouted aloft, and the adventurous Triptolemus had a \nfull share of the immersion." \n\nHere is an " immersion by sprinkling" from the showery \nbrine. So we have seen a bapting by sprinkling among the \nGreeks, a Unction by sprinkling among the Latins, and a \ndipping by sprinkling in Milton\'s Comus. Do the framers \nof this phraseology (intending by it to construct a crown \nof supremest ridicule for their opponents), feel alarmed ? \n" Stones thrown up into the air may come down on our \nown pate." \n\nIt is beyond all controversy, that one \'of the best writers \nof the English language does use the word "immersion" \nw 7 here no immersion, in fact, took place ; but only a thor- \nough wetting by means of a profuse sprinkling. This is \nthe incontrovertible fact. Did "the Wizard of the North" \nwrite good English? Were the laws of language unknown \nto " the Great Unknown ?" \n\nUnless these framers of sentences will crown, with their \nhandiwork, Sir Walter as " Lord of the Eidiculous," they \nmust even accept of " Immersion by Sprinkling." \n\nIf, now, the author of Waverley is justified in writing, \nnot under the poetic afflatus, nor as " one of the most im- \npassioned of men" (the explanation given of a similar \nGreekly baptism by Dr. Fuller), but in homely prose, of \na thorough icetting as an " immersion;" then, we are justified \nin speaking of a thorough influence as an " immersion" where \nno immersion takes place; or thoroughly engaged, mentally \noccupied, as an " immersion," when no immersion, real or \nimaginary, takes place. \n\nIt is this latter which it is proposed, now, to exemplify : \n\n" While Dr. Chalmers, immersed in Parliamentary re- \nports as to the operation of the Poor Laws, was engaged " . . \n\n" November saw Dr. C. once more immersed in his pro- \nfessorial labors." \n\n14 \n\n\n\n210 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n" The Secretary of War is immersed in business." \n\n" I find myself immersed in the matters of which I know \nleast." \n\n" Men of business immersed in the cares of an extended \ntraffic." \n\n" We in England are generally immersed in our own \nconcerns." \n\n" Deeply immersed in calculations from the simple unit \nto millions, billions, and trillions." \n\n" As he rode on immersed in these unpleasant contem- \nplations." \n\n" They rode as men deeply immersed in their own \nthoughts." \n\n"Walking up and down the room immersed in thought." \n\n" The busy, bustling merchant immersed in all the cal- \nculation of this world\'s traffic." \n\n" He was a little too much immersed in worldly schemes. \nHe attached himself so eagerly to business that he thought \nevery hour lost." \n\n" He was so much immersed in politics that he did not \ncare to be annoyed with it." \n\n" And immersed himself among a parcel of worm-eaten \nfolios." \n\n" Had taken up the Prayer-Book; she seemed immersed \nin devotional duty." \n\n" Ha ! yes, I was so immersed in my book." \n\n" Continued immersed in the fascinating perusal." \n\n" The noonday prayer-meeting comes, happily, at that \nhour when we would be most likely to be immersed in the \nbusiness or pleasures of the world." \n\n" The padre was on his way to church, and immersed in \nthe study of his sermon." \n\n"I\'ve just dipped into the works of such an author. \nNow, this far from signifying that I feel my mind, as it \nwere, immersed in the author\'s writings." \n\nWhatever may be supposed to be the precise physical \nliterality on which such usage of "immerse" rests; there \n\n\n\nMEANING ESTABLISHED BY USAGE. 211 \n\ncan be no doubt, but that, without suggestion of intus- \nposition, it does, directly, express thorough mental engaged- \n\nness. \n\nMEANING ESTABLISHED BY USAGE. \n\nThe examination of this word has been pursued suffi- \nciently far for our purpose. The conclusions reached are: \n\n1. Immerse expresses no form of act; but demands and \nsecures for its object intusposition, without limitation of \nsize in the object, force in the agency, depth in the ele- \nment, or time in duration. \n\n2. ^Vhen the continuance of the intusposition is brief, \nit is not because of any limitation, or action on the part \nof immerse; but from causes foreign to it, and for which\' \nit has no responsibility. No alliance, therefore, can be \nestablished with dip on this ground, any more than be- \ntween dip and sink, or ingulf, or swallow up, &c. ; all of whose \nobjects may, by foreign influences, be recovered within a \nbrief space from the condition to which they have been \nintroduced. \n\n3. The preposition in composition \xe2\x80\x94 "in" \xe2\x80\x94 merse, \xe2\x80\x94 has \na purely local force, and does not indicate movement of the \nobject into \xe2\x80\x94 put into, dip into \xe2\x80\x94 as some writers have as- \nsumed. It is as legitimate to "immerse" by bringing the \nwater to the object, as by bringing the object to the water, \nnotwithstanding that Dr. Carson (whose like we are told \nthe world will not see again for "a millenar}\' of years") \ndeclares, that put into is so ingrained in the word that when \nit does not "put into" it still means put into. \n\n4. It may express a thorough wetting (without intusposi- \ntion), by sprinkling or otherwise. \n\n5. It may express death by drowning. \n\n\n\n212 CLASSIC BAPTISM, \n\n6. It expresses thorough influence of any kind; the nature \ndetermined by the adjunct. \n\n7. It expresses thorough mental engagedness. \n\n8. Immerse is antipodal to dip. Baptist writings which \nmake these terms equivalents can be of no controversial \nvalue. Baptist Bible translation which commands " im- \nmerse," and Baptist ritual practice which substitutes dip, \nhave neither part nor lot in each other. \n\n9. While dip, tingo, and ftdxru) are joined in the closest \nbonds, immerse is, by nature, widely disjoined from them \nalL \n\n\n\nMERGO. 213 \n\n\n\nMEEGO. \nITS MEANING AND USAGE. \n\n1. Mergo expresses no definite form of action ; but makes \nthe demand, in primary use, of intusposition for its object \nas its essential requisite. \n\nThis it secures by forms of action, and by forces of \nagency, in endless variety. The magnitude of its objects, \nand the depth of penetration to which it introduces them, \nare also most varied in character. \n\nThe duration of the mersion effected is without limit; \nalthough, as in any other case where an object has been \nsunk, ingulfed, or swallowed up, the object mersed may \nbe recovered, from its state of mersion, by other influences. \n\n2. Capability of influence, necessarily, attaches to such \nstate of intusposition. \n\nThis influence will vary in development according to \nthe nature of the object mersed, and the nature of the \nmersing element ; which appears in Latin usage to take a \nsomewhat wider range than in Greek or English. \n\n3. The secondary use of this word has its development, \nnecessarily, in the direction of. a controlling influence. \nPhysical investiture is thrown aside. As, in physical mer- \nsion, whatever force can secure intusposition is an equally \nlegitimate representative of the will of mergo ; so, in the \nsecondary use, whatever agency (no matter in what form \nit may develop its power) is capable of exerting a control- \nling influence over its object, may claim mergo to express, \nnot the form of action, but the measure of the influence. \n\n4. To all these characteristics, primary or secondary, dip \nis, by usage, and must ever remain by necessity of nature, \na perfect stranger. \n\n\n\n214 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nPEIMAKY. \nILLUSTRATION BY USAGE. \n\nPrimumque pedis vestigia tiDxi : \nPoplite deinde terms. Neque eo contenta recingor \nNudaque mergor aquis Ovid. \n\nAnd I am mersed naked in the waters. \n\nIn medias quoties visum captantia collum \nBrachia mersit aquas, nee se deprehendit in illis ! . Ovid. \nHe mersed his arms into the midst of the waters. \n\nJuvat esse sub undis; \nEt modo tota cava submergere membra pallude \nNunc proferre caput Ovid. \n\nAnd to submerse all their limbs in the deep pool. \n\nFurit iEsacus, inque profundum \nPronus abit, lethique viam sine fine retentat. \niEquor amat : nomenque nianet, quia mergitur, illi. . Ovid. \n\nThe name (mergus) remains to him, because he is mersed. \n\nEt mergi projecta non possunt, licet gravia sint. . Seneca. \nThings cast into it cannot be mersed, although heavy. \n\nNihil mergitur in Siciliae fonte Phintia. . . . Pliny. \nNothing is mersed in Phintia, a fountain of Sicily. \n\nThe first of these passages shows the distinctive use of \nlingo and mergo. The foot playing in and out of the water \nis dipped; the body under the water "gliding hither and \nthither/ 5 is in a state of mersion. How the body became \nmersed, there is not a ray of light to indicate either from \nmergo or any other quarter. It may have been by walk- \ning gradually into deeper water; it may have been by leap- \ning from the bank, at once, into deep water; or it may have \nbeen partially by walking, and, then, by slowly sinking \ndown. We know that it was not by dipping, for dipping \nputs nothing into a state of mersion, but takes out, promptly, \nwhat it puts in, and is, therefore, what it is \xe2\x80\x94 a dipping. \n\nIt should be noted that the head remains unmersed, \n\n\n\nMERSING MATERIAL VARIOUS. 215 \n\nwhile there is no limitation in the language \xe2\x80\x94 "I am \nmersed in the waters." \n\nIn the third quotation, the frogs are wholly underwater, \nand we know that this is hy leaping ; hut will any one say \nthat "mcrgo" means to leap? Yet it does mean "to leap" \njust as much as it means any other act hy which mersion \nis effected. \n\nThe last passage expounds the origin of the name \n" Mcrgus," a class of waterfowl. It arose from an attempt \nof ^Esacus to drown himself in the sea; when he was \nchanged hy Tethys, in commiseration, into a Mergas. \n\n\n\nMERSING MATERIAL VARIOUS. \n\nPandere res alta in terra et caligine mersas. . Virgil. \n\nTo reveal things mersed in the deep earth and in darkness. \nFerrum mersum in robora. .... Lucretius. \n\nIron mersed in hard wood. \nMersis in Sinum manibus. .... Quintillian. \n\nHands mersed in the bosom. \nFlumen specu raergitur Pliny. \n\nThe river is mersed in the cave. \nMergit se limo Pliny. \n\nJlerses in the mud. \n\nMergcre manum in ora ursae Martial. \n\nJlerse the hand into the mouth of the bear. \nMersisque in corporc rostris Ovid. \n\nDogs\' mouths mersed in the body (of Action). \nCaecis ego mersa cavernis Ovid. \n\nImmersed in dark caverns. \nMembra simul pecudis. . . Mergit in sere cavo. Ovid. \n\nJlerses the limbs of the ram in the hollow brass. \nMersitque suos in cortiec vultus. . . . Ovid. \n\nAnd mersed her features in the bark. \n\nThis last passage, in which Myrrha is transformed into \na tree, is in perfect harmony with a state of mersion; it \ncan scarcely be made to accord with a dipping. \n\n\n\n216 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nThe following passages, showing the covering material \nbrought over the object, are, in like manner, inconsistent \nwith any other meaning than that of condition. The first \nrefers to the general deluge ; the second to the eyelid being \ndrawn over the eye. \n\nAut mersse culmina villse navigat Ovid. \n\nSails over the top of the mersed, house. \nLamina somno mergimus Valerius Flaccus. \n\nWe merse the eyes in sleep. \n\nINTUSPOSITION WITH INFLUENCE. \n\nCorporeasque dapes avidam demersit in alvum. . . Ovid. \n\nWhoever first de-mersed flesh food into his greedy belly. \nSive virgam, sive frondem demersis, lapidem post paucos dies \n\nextrahis Seneca- \n\nA twig or leaf having been let down, you may draw it \nout, after a few days, a stone. \n\nDROWN. \n\nTyberinus, qui in trajectu Albulse amnis submersus. Livy. \n\nTyberinus, who in the passage of the . river Albula was \nsubmersed. \nAlbula, quern Tiberini, mersus Tiberinus in undis. Fastorum. \nAlbula, called Tiber, because Tiberinus was mersed in its \nwaters. \nHoc exilium est mihi instar procellse quo agitor, non sub- \nmergor. Summersus faissem, si me interemisset. \n\nTristium, xi, 13 (note). \nThis exile is to me like a storm by which I am tost, not \nsubmersed. I had been submersed, if I had perished. \nYertere Mseonios, pelagoque immergere, nautas. . Ovid. \nCould transform the Mxonian sailors, and immerse them \nin the sea. \nEcce super medios fluctus niger arcuo aquarum \nFrangitur : et rupt& mersum caput obruit unda. . Ovid. \nThe bursting billow rolls over his mersed head. \n\n\n\nDESTRUCTIVE TO INANIMATE OBJECTS. 217 \n\nCoeunt, et saxa trabesque \nConjiciunt; mergunt que viros mergunt que carinas. Ovid. \n\nThey hurl rocks and beams, and merse men and ships. \nSpargite me influctus, vastoque immergite ponto. . JEneid. \n\nCast me into the waves, and immerse me in the deep sea. \nSpumosa unda immerserat virum JEJneid. \n\nThe envious Triton mersed in the foaming wave the man. \nMedioque sub scquore raersit JEneid. \n\nWhat God mersed you in mid ocean ? \nNee me Deus ajquore mersit JEneid. \n\n\'Nor has any God mersed me in the sea. \nDoctus eris, vivam musto mersare Falerno. . Hor. Satir. \n\nMerse it, living, in Falernian wine. \n\nThis common use of " mergo" to denote death by drown- \ning, is, of itself, conclusive evidence that it cannot mean \nto dip. There is no evidence that dip, in English, tingo, \nin Latin, or ftdxT<o, in Greek, has any such usage. \n\n\n\nDESTRUCTIVE. \n\nMersft rate, naufragus assem dum rogat. . . Juvenal. \n\nOne shipwrecked, his vessel mersed, begs a penny. \n\nUnda . . . \n\nNee levhis, quam siquis Athon Pindumvc rcvulsos \nSede sua totos in apertum evcrterit sequor \nPrsccipitata ruit: pariterque et pondere et ictu, \n\n31ergit in ima ratem Ovid. \n\nThe wave, not lighter than Athos or Pindus, falls headlong ; \nAnd equally by the weight and by the blow, merses the ship ti \nthe bottom. \nMox eadem Tcucras fuerat mcrsura carinas . . Ovid. \n\nScylla would have mersed the Trojan ships. \nPars maxima classis mergitnr. .... Lucan. \n\nThe greatest part of the fleet is mersed. \nQuassa, tamen nostra est, nee mersa, nee obruta navis. \n\nTristium. \nOur ship is shattered, but not mersed or whelmed. \n\n\n\n218 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nQuid navigia sarcina depressa \xe2\x80\x94 quo minus mergantur. \n\nSeneca, Nat. Qu&s. \nWhat hinders but that vessels, depressed by their lading, \nmay be mersed. \n\nAgain we must profoundly feel, that between such usage \nand a dipping there can be no common sympathy. \n\n\n\nASSIMILATION. \n\nFluvius in Euphratem mcrgitur Pliny. \n\nThe river is mersed into the Euphrates. \n\nThe influence of water intusposed in water is the most \ncomplete incorporation and assimilation; the larger body \ncontrolling and absorbing the lesser. \n\nThis affords the basis for a secondary use of an important \ncharacter. I do not know that I can point to any exem- \nplification among Latin writers ; but it is quite common, \nin English usage, in connection, not with immerse, but with \nmerge. This word is employed daily in the sense expressive \nof incorporation and assimilation, but, almost, never in re- \nlation with physical elements. \n\nA few passages will illustrate this statement. \n\n" It provides for merging our Presbyteries into the Synods \nof the General Assembly. If we are to have union, let it \nbe union ; but if absorption, let it be so stated." \n\n" The States are united, not merged." \n\n" The amendment merging the Minnesota with the Kansas \nbill was withdrawn." \n\n" I am not prepared to be merged with the Old School." \n\n" The banks of the Cavalla River gradually rise until \nthey merge into the Gero and Pawh mountains." \n\n" The carriage road merges into the bridle path." \n\n" This is more than all the Popes, who ever lived, merged \nin one, would dare propose." \n\n" Merging its members in the newly created Christian \ncommunity." \n\n\n\nPURIFICATION. 219 \n\n" Her evening sun set, merged, at length, with joy in the \nendless life of heaven." \n\n" The meeting will continue until 12 o\'clock, and will, \nthen, be merged into the prayer meeting." \n\n" I may transgress the limits of propriety, and merge the \npulpit in the rostrum." \n\n" An ordinance to merge the department of the market- \nhouses into that of the city property." \n\n" Christians cannot \'merge themselves in the world, and \nyet live above the world." \n\n" In the year 1457, the distinctive existence of the Tab- \norite3 was merged in the Society of the Bohemian Brother- \nhood." \n\nThis usage is grounded in the controlling influence \nrepresented in merge The special form which that influ.- \nence takes, in the present case, is that of absorption and \nassimilation. There is not mere mersion, but unification. \nMerge, in its ordinary English use, cannot translate ^ar.ri^u). \n\n\n\nPURIFICATION. \n\nHsec sanctd utposcas, Tiberino in gurgite niergis \nMane caput bis terque, et noctem flumine purgas. Perseus. \nThat thou mayest ask these things purely, merse thy head \nIn the river Tiber, twice and thrice, in the morning, and thus \npurge the night by the stream. \n\n"Whether it be thought justifiable, or not, to say that \n" mergo," here, does, directly, signify to purify, it is cer- \ntain that the end sought is purification. When Tiberinus \nwas "mersed" in the Tiber he was drowned; and "mergo," \nas used by both Livy and Ovid to describe the fact, has \nthis direct force \xe2\x80\x94 to drown. It would be unavoidable, but \nthat the word, commonly used to describe similar occur- \nrences, would secure to itself the power to express directly \nwhat originally was expressed, only, indirectly. In like \nmanner, " mergo," used, daily, to express the development \n\n\n\n220 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nof a purifying influence by mersion, would, unavoidably, \ncome to represent that influence, and not merely the in- \ntusposition procurative of it. \n\nThus, in the natural development of language, "mersus \nhomo" might represent " a purified man;" because \xe2\x80\x94 1. He \nhad been actually mersed in his whole body, and thus had \nreceived a fully developed purifying influence. 2. Because \nhis " head" had been actua\'ly mersed, and thus the purify- \ning influence had been received by the entire body. And, \n3. Because complete purification had been received in \nsome other way than by mersion, in whole or in part, \nwhether by sacrifice, by fire, or by sprinkled water. \n\nTo say that a man thoroughly purified- by sprinkled water \nmay not be called u mersus homo," on the ground that \n" mersus" means immersed, is to "kick against the pricks," \nsharp and innumerable, projecting through all the history \nof language. The purifying power was in the water of \nthe Tiber, and that power was not limited, in its develop- \nment, to a state of mersion, but was equally secured by \nsprinkling. \n\nBis caput intonsum fontana spargitur unda \n\n\n\nTer caput irrorat, ter tollit ad gethera palmas. Fast. 4. \n\nTwice his unshorn head is sprinkled with spring, water. \n\n\n\nThrice he sprinkles his head, thrice he lifts his hands to \nheaven. \n\nNo one will question that this sprinkling induced con- \ndition of purification ; no one (I will venture to presume, \nuntil. advertised of the contrary) will question that "mer- \nsus" may denote a condition of purification (or any other \ncondition), where no actual mersion has taken place; \ntherefore, it is beyond all denial that " mersus homo" may \nrepresent, not the act of sprinkling, but a man who has been \npurified by sprinkling. \n\nI do not say that, in the passage before us, mergo means \nto purify, although Perseus employs pur go to express its \n\n\n\nPURIFICATION. 221 \n\nimport alone, or that of the phrase of which it is a mem- \nber, and the " interpretation" substitutes lavo for it. It is \nsufficient for my present purpose to establish an unques- \ntionable possible use. Mergo used to develop a thoroughly \npurifying influence for its object by intusposition in river \nwater, may, most legitimately, be used to express such \npurification in whatsoever way effected. \n\nIn reference to a resemblance between this mersion of \nthe head, and a dipping, I would remark: 1. The distinc- \ntion established between these words precludes their con- \nfusion here. 2. Any object mersed, and resting, most \nbriefly, in that condition, for the sake of the influence of \nsuch condition, deprives it of the character of a mere dip- \nping. 3. With the facts before us, it is madness to make \nmergo mean to dip. 4. Such usage of mergo brings it into \nfellowship, not with the primary meaning to dip, but with \nthe secondary meaning to dye, and its extension to the \ncommunication of quality without color. This mersion \nwas for the purpose of securing the quality of purification. \nAs dipping sometimes took place for the sake of dyeing, \nand then ceased to mean to dip; and dyeing was effected \nby sprinkling, or in any way; so, mersion for purification \nceases to mean to intuspose, and becomes to purify in \nany way. 5. The extent and mode of applying an element \ncapable of producing a purification is purely arbitrary, and, \nin fact, endlessly varied. Whether the whole body be \nmersed, or the head or hands only; whether the whole \nbody be poured upon or sprinkled; or whether the ex- \ntremity of the lips only be touched ; the purified one be- \ncomes equally a "mersus homo." Mersus in such case, \nof course, referring not to the manner in which the puri- \nfying element has been used, whether by mersion or \nsprinkling, but to the condition of purity induced. The \nfollowing quotation is illustrative: "Let him first sip \nwater thrice; then twice wipe his mouth; and lastly touch \nwith water the six cavities before mentioned, his breast \nand his head. lie who knows the law and seeks purity, \nwill ever perform his ablution with the pure part of his \n\n\n\n222 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nhand, and with water neither hot nor frothy, standing in a \nlonely place, and turning to the east or north. \n\n" A Brahmin i3 purified by water that reaches his bosom; \na Cschatriga by water descending to his throat; a Vaisya \nby water barely taken into his mouth; a Sudra by water \ntouched with the extremity of his lips." \xe2\x80\x94 Institutes of \nManu, Gr. Ch. Haughton, London, p. 29. \n\nPurifying water " touching the lips" constitutes an ab- \nlution, and makes a " mersus homo." \n\n\n\nFIGURE. \n\nNescit quid perdat, et alto \nDemersus, summa rursum non bullit in unda. . Perseus. \nDemersed in the de.ep, he never again emerges. \n\nKimia facilitate in voluptates mergi. . . . Curtius. \nMersed into pleasures by too great wealth. \n\nMersor fortunse fluctibus Catullus. \n\nMersed by the billows of fortune. \nMersor civilibus undis Hor. Epist. \n\nMersed by political waves. \n\nThese passages exhibit figurative use, in contradistinc- \ntion from that simply tropical, turned or secondary nse, \nby which words of original physical application are so far \nmodified in meaning as to adapt them to express ideas \ngrowing out of relations not physical. Perseus, clearly, \nhas a picture in his mind which he presents for us to look \nat. The debased man of whom he speaks is not merely \nrepresented as " demersed" \xe2\x80\x94 in this there would not be, \nnecessarily, any figure \xe2\x80\x94 but he adds, "in the deep," which \nwould be very tame of itself; but when he adds, "he \nnever bubbles to the surface," the picture is spirited and \ncomplete. \n\nThe passage from Curtius is most worthy of special \nattention. Had this writer simply said, " nimia facultate \nmergi," it would have been a merely prosaic statement \nexpressive of the controlling influence of excessive wealth; \n\n\n\nFIGURE. 223 \n\nbut by the addition, "in roluptates," he converts it into \nfigure, and shows that he does not mean merely to speak \nof influence, bat of influence exerted in a certain direc- \ntion, and to indicate that specific form he introduces a \nfigurative element, namely, "pleasures." \n\nIt is very rarely that, the accusative, representing the \nelement, is thus introduced either in the Greek or in the \nLatin. The reason, I suppose, is, because in the secondary \nuse there is no design to speak in figure; and because the \ncharacter of the influence can be gathered, usually, with \nsufficient accuracy from the subject-matter of discourse. \nStill, it is manifest that the greatest possible precision is \ngiven by the use of this form of speech, and, sometimes, \n(as in referring to an influence wholly new or imperfectly \nunderstood) it might be essentially necessary to employ it. \n\nHad one stood on the banks of the Tiber while purifica- \ntion was sought by mersing the head, and thrice sprinkling \nits waters, and proclaimed the insufficiency of purification \nso secured ; and the necessity of mersion by repentance ; \nsome vague idea, and only a vague idea, might have been \nreceived as to the effect of a Repentance Mersion compared \nwith a Tiber Mersion ; but if mersion by repentance into \nthe remission of sins is proclaimed, then the thought is stated \nwith absolute definiteness, and becomes flooded with light. \nSo, "mersion by wealth" is an indefinite statement; while \n\'mersion by wealth into pleasures" gives form and feature \nto the thought. The former phrase is sufficient for things \nwith whose nature and influential effects we are familiar; \nthe latter is necessary in speaking of things unfamiliar and \nfor rhetorical effect. \n\nIn the last two passages, the use of "fluctibus" and \n" undis " determines the picture character of the thought \nin the minds of the writers. And it may be well to say, \nparticularly, that these words, although representing a \nfluid element, do not represent the element in which, but \nthe means by which the mersion takes place. This is con- \nclusively shown by the passage of Ovid, which expressly \ndeclares that it was "pondere et ictu" of the wave that \n\n\n\n224 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthe vessel was mersed " in ima" So in " nimia facultate \nin voluptates," the instrumental means is represented by \nits appropriate case. And, in general, it should be under- \nstood that the ablative, in all cases of innuence-mersion, \nrepresents the agency by which, and not the element in \nwhich, the mersion takes place. \n\n\n\nSECOKDAKY USE. \nINFLUENCE WITHOUT INTUSPOSITION. \n\nSed me fata me his mersere malis. . . JEneid. \n\nThe fates have mersed me by these evils. \n\nAbstulit atra dies, et funere mersit acerbo. . . JEneid. \n\nDeath has snatched away, and mersed with a bitter end. \n\nAut qusB forma viros fortunave mersit. . . JEneid. \n\nWhat form or fortune has mersed the men ? \n\nEt mersis fer opem mitissima rebus. . . . Ovid. \nO most Benign ! bring help to our mersed affairs. \n\nAb Jove mersa suo Stygias penitrarit in undas. . Ovid. \n\nMersed by her Jove shall go down to the Stygian waters. \n\nAfier opem, mersseque precor \'feritate paterna. . Ovid. \nHelp ! and receive me mersed by paternal cruelty. \n\nBerum copia mersat Lucretius. \n\nAbundance of things merses. \n\nQui peritissime censum domini mergit. . . Pliny. \n\nWho most cunningly merses the estate of his master. \n\nMersus foro Plautus. \n\nMersed by debt. \n\nMersus rebus secundis, Alexander. \n\nAlexander mersed by prosperity. \n\nMersus vino, somnoque. \n\nMersed by wine and sleep. \n\n\n\nPotatio quae mergit. \n\nThe drink which merses. \n\n\n\nLivy. \nLivy. \nSeneca. \n\n\n\nINFLUENCE WITHOUT INTUSPOSITION. 225 \n\nVirum gravem, moderatum, sed mcrsum vino, et madcntem. \n\nSeneca. \n\nA man grave, moderate, bat mersed and icct with wine. \n\nMergere aliqucm ad Styga Seneca. \n\nMerse any one to the Styx. \nEt Cosmi toto nicrgatur abeno. .... Juvenal. \n\nJlerscd by the whole unguent vase of Cosmus. \nMergit longa, atquc insignis honorum pagina. . . Juvenal. \n\nA long and eminent record of honors merses. \nUt nicdiocris jacturae tc mcrgat onus. . . . Juvenal. \n\nThat the burden of a moderate loss should merse thee. \nScu rorc pudico \nCastaliso flavos amor est tibi mcrgcre crines. Statius, Thebais. \n\nTo merse thy yellow locks in the pure dew of Castalia. \n\nIt is unnecessary to comment on each of these passages. \nThe point to be established is, that mcrcjo (placing originally \nits object in a position \'where it is exposed to physical in- \nfluence in the fullest degree) comes to represent a condi- \ntion which is the result of some controlling influence inde- \npendent of i^osition. \n\nTwo or three clear cases will sufficiently illustrate this \npoint. \n\n" 0, most Benign ! bring help to our mersed affairs." \n\nThis is the prayer of Deucalion and Pyrrha, after the \nsubsidence of the general deluge, addressed to Thcmic; : \n"Declare, Themis! by what means the ruin of our race \nmay be repaired, and bring help, most Benign ! to our \nmersed affairs." \n\nThe prayer was not for a rescue of human affairs under \ndeluge waters; that condition had been, but was now \npassed away. Human affairs arc in a "ruined" condition, \nwhich is expressed by " mersed," and from this condition \ndeliverance is solicited. \n\nThe meaning of " rebus mersis" in this passage admits \nof but one possible interpretation in the connection in \nwhich it stands. But not indicating any specific form of \ninfluence, only controlling influence of some kind, there \n\n15 \n\n\n\n226 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nwould oftentimes be a necessity for the introduction of \nsome expounding words. Thus, " sere paterno ac rebus \nmersis in ventrem foenoris." \xe2\x80\x94 Juvenal, xi, 40. "Patrimony \nand property mersed into the gulf of usury." " Rebus \nmersis," here needed some explaining word, and it is fur- \nnished by " in ventrem foenoris." \n\n" Mersed by debt" \xe2\x80\x94 " that the burden of a moderate \nloss should merse you." Such phrases express, directly, a \nruinous influence. To reach this by a voyage at sea and \nthe foundering of a ship, is, at the best, sailing round the \nworld to arrive at a point one pace behind you. \n\n" Mersed to the Styx," is a phrase perfectly explicit, \nalthough the word is used absolutely, because the men- \ntion of " the Styx" makes but one interpretation possible. \nMergo, here, expresses a condition of death effected by \nsome controlling influence not mentioned, and which may \nbe from anything, and in any form competent to cause \ndeath. \n\nThis is shown by a parallel passage quoted. \n\n" Mersed by her Jove shall go down to the Stygian \nwaters." \n\nSome, not particularly conversant with the facts of the \ncase, might fancy to translate, " She shall go down into the \nwaters of Styx and be immersed by her friend Jove." \nAnd this translation might be very manfully defended by \ntriumphantly asking: 1. "Was not \'the Styx\' a river, \nand is there not water enough in a river for immersion f 2. \nDoes not \'penetro\' mean to penetrate, to go into, and what \nwould any one go into a river for except to be immersed? \n3. Does not \'in\' (above all, \'in\' with the accusative of a \nfluid element) denote movement, and what can \' in unclas \' \nmean but into the water f 4. And to crown all, does not \nmergo mean \'to dip\'? Have we not, then, the most ex- \npress statement of immersion, the denial of which shows, \n\'not the want of light, but of Christian honesty\'? 5. If \nassurance could go farther, is it not found in the declara- \ntion that there was an immerser present to do the work ? \n\n\n\nINFLUENCE WITHOUT INTUSPOSITION. 227 \n\nWhat, then, is lacking in this overwhelming, concentrated \nevidence \xe2\x80\x94 \' River\' \xe2\x80\x94 \' entering\' \xe2\x80\x94 * into\' \xe2\x80\x94 \' immersed\' \xe2\x80\x94 \n\'immerser?\' Surely nothing; the case is made out." \n\nJSTow, I frankly confess that if I knew no more about \nthe actual facts of this ease than I do about the absolute \nfacts of some other cases from which this reasoning is a \ntranscript, I could say nothing more to disturb the com- \nplacent convictions expressed respecting the " immersion" \nof Semele into the Styx by her special friend, than I could \nin such other cases. I must in all honesty confess to the \nStyx being "a river;" to ^enctro meaning "to enter;" to \nin meaning "into;" to mcrgo meaning "to mcrsc;" and to \nJove being quite competent to act as "immerscr;" but, \nafter all, there is still one difficulty in the way of Semele\'s \nimmersion in the river by her friend, and that is just \nthis, \xe2\x80\x94 he did no such tiling, but killed her by his thunderbolts ! \nAnd, now, with this historical help we review our transla- \ntions, and find that the Styx may remain a river still, with- \nout anybody being dipped into it; that "pcnetro"may \ncarry down very far, indeed, without carrying into the \nwater; that "in" may mean to even with " undas;" that \n" mcrgo" may express a condition of death by a thunder- \nbolt, as well as a condition of death by drowning; and \nboth, as well as a simple intusposition without any deadly \nconsequence following; and that Jove may be an " im- \nmerser" without dipping into water. I do not know that \nthis case will cause any misgiving as to the reasoning so \nearnestly urged by Baptist brethren in other cases; but \nif it should, I have no doubt of there being quite enough \nof " Christian honesty" on their part (whatever may be \ntrue of others) to make all due acknowledgment. Very \nsure am I, that whenever the historical facts in those cases \nshall be fully revealed, that they will show that the actual \nbaptism conferred in those rivers was no more like that \nimmersion in water contended for, than was the actual \nthunderbolt immersion of Semele like to her, translctiion- \nproucd, immersion into the Styx! In the JEneid, iv, 25, is \na parallel passage, the "thunderbolt" expressed, and the \n\n\n\n228 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nmersion implied \xe2\x80\x94 " Vel Pater omnipotens adigat me ful- \nmine ad umbras." \n\n" A long and eminent record of honors merses." \n\nHow far removed from a water mersion is a statement \nlike this. \n\n" Mergo" does not necessarily express a condition re- \nsultant from a destructive influence, but this is the ordi- \nnary result of physical mersion; therefore, when applied, \nwithout qualification, to cases where physics are not in- \nvolved, we must understand that a destructive influence \nis designed. \n\nThis is the ease here. Juvenal declares that, under cer- \ntain circumstances, "honors merse" \xe2\x80\x94 bring ruin. They \ndo so by awakening envy, jealousy, and hate on the part \nof others, or by begetting self-esteem, pride, and ambition, \non the part of the possessor; thus a condition of shame, \nsuffering, and ruin is induced, well described as a mersion \nby influence, but poorly expounded by insisting on a de- \nsign to picture an intusposition in water. \n\nPotatio ejuse mergit Seneca. \n\nThe drink which merses* \nMersus vino somnoque Livy. \n\nMersed by wine and sleep. \n\nThese passages are closely parallel, and afford a good \nopportunity to speak of the importance of discriminating, \nin eases of mersion, between the agency effecting the \nmersion and the element in which the mersion actually, \nor (in figure) supposedly, takes place ; as, also, of the ad- \nvanced usage which first obliterates figure and shadow, \nestablishing a general, secondary meaning, and then, by \nfrequent use, a specific meaning. \n\nThe passage from Seneca presents the agency in the \nnominative, and so precludes all question as to its charac- \nter. I ought to state that I have not seen this passage in \nits connection, and cannot vouch for its literal correctness ; \n\n\n\nINFLUENCE WITHOUT INTUSPOSITION. 229 \n\nbut whether there, or elsewhere, the phrase serves equally \nwell for comment.* \n\nThe " potation," or drink, is declared to be causative \nof the mcrsion. Now, it is a physical impossibility that \nanything drunk should produce a physical mersion of the \ndrinker. Such a result is, then, out of the question. But \nmcrsion by figure is no less out of question, so far as \nthe drink is sought to be made the clement in which the \nmersion is figuratively to take place. If the mcrsion, by \nfigure, of c,, a lake into the blood of a mouse," is an intoler- \nable perversion of taste, how much better is that which \nwould figure a man mersed into the tluid which fills his \nmouth or stomach? If some other sort of figure is sought \nfor, as " into drunkenness," "into insensibility," I admit \nthat such figure mav be used for the sake of definiteness \nof thought, or for giving special force to the expression; \nbut deny the necessity for, or the propriety of, any such \nthin^ in the case before us. 1. There is no need for \n" definiteness." \'No one who reads this phrase but what \nunderstands, at once, that an intoxicatmg drink is intended. \n2. There is no need for force. The phrase is one of con- \ncentrated energy. There is a power of fact in the utter- \nance which tramples figure under foot, and goes straight \nforward to its end. It declares something which " pota- \ntion" does substantially, not figures shadowly. And what \ndoes " potation" of an intoxicating liquor do ? Why, it makes \ndrunk. Then that is what Seneca declares, throwing aside \nphysical intusposition, and figurative intusposition, and \npassing beyond general controlling influence, lie gives in- \ndividuality, body, and shape to that influence in the nerv- \n\n* On examination I find the following passage: " Aliquando vectatio \niterquc, et mutata regio, vigorem dabunt, convictusque et liberalior potio ; \nnonnunquam et usque ad ebrietatem veniendum, non ut mergat nos sed ut \ndeprimat. ; \' De tranquililate animi. This is the passage, I presume, which \nis intended to be presented, in a condensed form, in " Potatio quce tnergit." \n"Not that it may merse us, hut depress cares." Has depress, express, \nimpress, oppress, suppress, no secondary meaning? Seneca says: " Bac- \nchus is called Liber because he liberates the mind from the slavery of \ncares." \n\n\n\n230 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nous statement \xe2\x80\x94 " The Drink which makes drunk." " Potatio" \nnecessitates such coloring to the thought. We have, then, \na mersion by a fluid without being in that fluid, or in any \nother, but effected by drinking a pint or a quart, thus ex- \nercising over the drinker a controlling, intoxicating power. \nSeneca elsewhere says : " Ubi possedit animum nimia vis \nvini, quicquid mali latebat emergit." This shows that wine \nmersion is not, with Seneca, a dipping or sinking, but a \nnimia vis vini \xe2\x80\x94 a controlling influence of wine. \n\nIn the passage from Livy, as the ablative is used in \nexpressing the agency, occasion has been taken to convert \nthe agency of the mersion into the element of mersion. \n\nDoes any one doubt that " wine and sleep" were the \nagencies in this mersion ? Does any one doubt the essen- \ntial difference between the agency effecting a mersion, \nand the element in which the mersion of the object takes \nplace? If these things are beyond controversy, why, then, \nconfound the agency and the element by contending for a \n" mersion in wine and sleep ?" How is such mersion con- \nceivable ? Are " wine and sleep" to be conceived of as \nmingled together, and so constituting a joint bath? Or, \nis there to be a mersion, first into the one, and then into \nthe other? These questions must be met. Difficulties \nmust not be covered up by vague talk of figure. \n\nInterpret according to the facts, making " wine and \nsleep" agencies, and all runs smoothly. They, by their \nconjoint influence, exercise a controlling influence of ac- \ncumulated power, which is described in the strongest \nlanguage by terming it a mersive influence. \n\nThose who contend for figure here, and to effect it turn \n" wine and sleep" into a nondescript clement, appeal for \nsupport to JEneid ii, 265: " Invadunt urban somno vinoque \nsepultam" The appeal brings no valuable aid. " Sepelio" \nis modified in its usage just as mergo and scores of other \nwords are. We say of an unsuccessful politician, " he is \ndead and buried;" do we mean by this to picture a grave- \nyard, pit, coffin, and shrouded corpse, with incasted earth? \nOr, do we mean to express simply that his hopes and \n\n\n\nINFLUENCE WITHOUT INTUSPOSITION. 231 \n\nefforts for advancement are utterly futile? Besides, how \ncan a city be "buried in both sleep and wine?" Is not one \nentombment sufficient? Virgil utters no such figurative \nabsurdity. He expresses no figure in which tombs, inti- \ntuled "wine," "sleep," filled with the corpses of a city, \nare pictured. He does declare that the conjoined in- \nfluence of sleep and wine induces such profound stupor \nthat all the noise of an invading army cannot break it. \n\nVirgil speaks of another burial, JEneid, vi, 424, " Occu- \npat JEncas aditum custode scpulto" How was this "burial" \neffected ? A medicated cake is thrown to the dog Cerberus, \nunder the soporific influence of which he comes by eating, \nand is " buried;" as the Trojans came under the intoxicat- \ning influence of wine by drinking, and were "buried." But \nhow was he "buried"? Why, by being poured out on the \nground ("fusus humi"), if we may credit those interpreters \nwho insist on "one meaning -through an entire language." \nAn odd sort of burial, to be sure; yet, this was all the \nburial that the three-headed sentinel received. \n\nSuppose, now, we stood by the side of ^Eneas, and \nlooked down upon that monster, stretched out through \nthe whole length of the cave; how much of a "burial" \nwould we suppose to be in " sepultus," or even in " sepul- \ntus in somno," as applied to that unentombed object? \n\nTake another case : JEneid, iii, 630, " Nam simul expletus \ndapibiiSy vinoque sepidtus." "Burial in wine" is a strange \nsort of a figure. Wine is "the drink which merses" \xe2\x80\x94 \nburies; not the element in which mersion or burial takes \nplace. Picture-figure here fails. Influence is the only and \nmost sufficient source of explanation. If confirmation were \nneeded, it is found in another parallel passage: " JRutuli \nsomno vinoque soluti" ix, 236. \n\nNow, suppose we press on this language, as is done in \nthe other cases, and insist that as "solvo" means to dis- \nsolve, so, " sleep and wine" are figured as liquids in lohich \nthe Butuli are placed to be "dissolved"! There is as \nmuch good sense in this as making "sleep and wine," in \nthe other cases, sepulchres. But few will urge such picture- \n\n\n\n232 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nfigure; but if they cannot in the one case, they may not \nin the other. In all such cases, mcrgo, sepelio, solvo, are \nused to exhibit the development of strong influence; each \none with its peculiar shade of thought. " Sleep and wine," \nboth, induce great relaxation of the muscular system, and \ntherein is the ground of the use of " solvo ;" and a relaxed \nbody " stretched at great length on the ground," is like \nwater " poured along;\'* therefore, the application of "fusus" \nto Cerberus. " Wine and sleep" are influential agencies in \nrelaxing the limbs of the Eutuli, and not a mixture in \nwhich they are " dissolved." \n\nI only add, that the translation u in wine and sleep," \ndoes not secure a figurative mersion or burial. Picturing \nis still excluded, and influence remains sovereign. We \nsay a man drunk is " in liquor;" do we mean to utter \nfigure, or to express influence? \n\nPope describes one of his Dunciad heroes thus: \n\n11 Where Bentley late tempestuous wont to sport \nIn troubled waters, but now sleeps in Port." \n\nHis annotator remarks: "A certain wine called Port, \nfrom Oporto, a city of Portugal, of which this Professor \ninvited him to drink abundantly." \n\nNow, shall we be told that the poet does, here, "by an \nelegant figure," put Mr. Bentley to sleep "m" a cask of \nPort wine? Does \xe2\x80\x94 " in troubled waters" \xe2\x80\x94 merse or bury \nin water? What shall be said of criticism which tears \nwords out of organic phrases, and by them conjures up \nsuch " elegant figures"? Stones, in a heap, may be han- \ndled and treated disjunctly; but when builded into an \narch, they can only be treated in their relations to each \nother, unless our purpose be destruction. Words, in com- \nbination, have a common life, which perishes when they \nare torn asunder. \n\nWhile Livy and Virgil speak of the controlling influence, \nconjointly exercised, of wine and sleep, Seneca speaks of \nthe specific power of wine to intoxicate. \n\n\n\nCONCLUSIONS FROM USAGE. 233 \n\nCONCLUSIONS FROM USAGE. \n\n1. Mergo represents no definite form of action ; is, alike, \nindifferent to the movement of the object or the clement; \nis equally competent to take a world or a grain of sand for \nits object; makes no limit of time; puts no bounds to \nforce ; establishes no modes of action ; claims intusposition \nfor its object, and securing that has performed its duty, \nand ceases its functions in primary relations. \n\n2. Secondarily: Mergo represents a condition which is \nthe result of some controlling influence; the nature of the \ncondition being limited and determined, only, by the \nnature of the influence, extending through the wide range \nof purification by sprinkled water-drops, to death by flam- \ning thunderbolts. \n\n3. Absolutely: Mergo represents influence destructive in \ncharacter. \n\n4. Appropriation: Mergo means to drown, to make drunk. \nFacts, in this direction, were of constant occurrence, and \ndaily use would stamp specific meaning. Fitness to ex- \npress the meaning to purify is equally good; but evidence \nfor such usage, in fact, is not so strong. \n\n5. With peculiarities of usage, such as must occur, the \ngeneral features of usage in mergo and immerse are in \nthe most perfect harmony, rather are identical. \n\n6. The characteristics of mergo are in strongest contrast \nwith those offidxrat, tingo, and dip. If a defiled man seeking \npurification is commanded to merse his head for this purpose \nin purifying water, and, its influence having been secured, \ntakes it out again, mergo makes no complaint because he \ndid not keep it there until another influence of the water, \ndrowning, was secured. If any one should be pleased to \nsay, because of this mode of securing the controlling in- \nfluence of purifying water, that mergo and dip mean the \nsame thing, he must hold controversy, not with me, but \nwith common sense, with the old Romans, and with the \nmasters in English. \n\n\n\n234 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nBAI1TIZQ. \n\nWHAT DOES IT MEAN? \n\nWe pursue our inquiry, guided by, and submissive to, \nthe Horatian law, \n\n" Usus \nQuern penes arbitrium est, et jus, et norma loquendi. ,> \n\nIn doing this, I stand before the same tribunal with Dr. \nCarson, who says : " I have appealed to a higher tribunal \nthan the authority of all critics \xe2\x80\x94 to use itself" \n\n" Truth is on every man\'s side." Then, this utterance, \nfaithfully interpreted, will not be adverse to any of us, \nwhatever it may be. \n\nMay we seek, with all docility, the guidance of the \nSpirit of Truth, that we may be " led by Him into all \ntruth" necessary for our good, and promotive of the glory \nof His Name ! \n\nWhatever of time or labor may have been demanded to \npass over the preceding discussion, few, I hope, will con- \nsider the one or the other wastefully expended in view \nof the vantage-ground which has been thus, and could \nonly thus have been, secured for a discriminating and \nauthoritative determination of this long-debated word. \' \n\nThe words examined clearly belong to two distinct \nclasses. Each class has its own deeply marked and broadly \ndistinguishing characteristics. And may we not affirm, as \na point beyond controversy, that no word can belong to both \nthese classes ? \n\nIf, now, the word which we are about to examine be- \nlongs to either class, its usage cannot be ambiguous, nor \nleave a shadow of doubt as to the class to which it must \nbe attached. Its classification having been determined, its \ndevelopment, under the exigencies of language, must be \nassumed to be in harmony with its original nature. \n\n\n\nPRIMARY USE. 235 \n\nUSAGE OP BAIITIza. \n\nINTUSPOSITION WITHOUT INFLUENCE. \nPRIMARY USE. \n\n1. "Ous ozav fdv a/ixajr\'.c tj [rq jSa-ri^sffOac. \n\nAristotle, Wonderful Reports. \n\n2. \'Apdimmdv re xaO y udatp (peXXbv. Archias, Epigr. x. \n\n3. \'EpdTxu? ei$ rdv ohov. Julian, Egypt. Cupid, p. 223. \n\n4. Ouv ld6vre<; ob pa.-riZoij.hovq. Lucian, True History, ii, 4. \n\n5. \'Es\'Qzeaatoto fidou pcurriZero Tizfy. Orphei, Argonautica, 512. \n\n6. \'Efiftaimeftivas rdiq rilixaavj. Plutarch, Sylla, xxi. \n\n7. \'Atrxoq pairciZy. Plutarch, Theseus, xxiv. \n\n8. a Eio$ ra\xc2\xbb fj.a<j7ajv ol-z^o). parrrt\xc2\xa36fievot. Polybius, hi, 72, 4. \n\n9. Ba-rtZo/i&ou rod dpuhoo [idpzt. PolybillS, xxxiv, 3, 7. \n\n10. Ba-zferat. /j.e/pi xscpaXrjq. Porphyry, Abstinence, p. 282. \n\n11. "Sore ftoXtg fia-rCZsffOau. Strabo, xii, 2, 4. \n\n12. Miypi 6i\xc2\xb1<pa\\oo fia\xe2\x80\x94t\'o/iivojv. Strabo, xiv, 3, 9. \n\nMERSION WITHOUT INFLUENCE. \nPRIMARY USE. \n\n1. Which when it is ebb tide are not mersed \xe2\x80\x94 (sea-coast). \n\n2. And cork immersed by water \xe2\x80\x94 (fishing-net). \n\n3. I mersed him into the wine \xe2\x80\x94 (Cupid). \n\n4. Seeing them not mersed \xe2\x80\x94 (men with cork feet). \n\n5. The sun mersed himself into the ocean flood. \n\n6. Mersed in the marshes \xe2\x80\x94 (armor). \n\n7. A bladder, thou may est be mersed; but there is no decree \n\nfor thee to sink. \n\n8. The infantry being mersed up to the breasts. \n\n9. The oak (fishing-spear) being mersed by the weight. \n\n10. He is mersed to the head. \n\n11. So that it is hardly mersed \xe2\x80\x94 (dart). \n\n12. Being mersed to the waist. \n\n\n\n236 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nGENERAL REMARKS. \n\n\n\n1. Such cases of usage present a favorable opportunity \nfor determining the meaning, inasmuch as there are no \ncomplications arising from influence exerted by the mcr- \nsion over the object. I have given all the cases of this \nclass with which I have met. \n\n2. There is no semblance, in any one of these cases, of \nthe meaning to dip. Cupid is put into the wine without \nbeing taken out. He is swallowed by the drinker. \n\n3. There is as little semblance of any other modal act \nbeing the exponent of the Greek word, since a variety of \nmodal acts, entirely distinct in character \xe2\x80\x94 flowing, sink- \ning, in-putting, falling, throwing, walking \xe2\x80\x94 do equally \nwell, and with equal authority perform the baptism. \n\n4. No exposition can meet the facts of the case which \ndoes not remove paitri\'v from the class of verbs expressive \nof modality in action (whether general or particular), and \nplace it among those which, immediately, demand condi- \ntion, leaving the form and character of the act securing \nthat condition unexpressed and uncared for. \n\n5. BarMlm has no alliance with /Ja-rcy, tingo, and dip. It is \nin most intimate accord with mergo and merse. \n\nPARTICULAR CASES. \n\n"1." " They say that the Phoenicians inhabiting the re- \ngion called Gadira, sailing beyond the Pillars of Hercules, \nwith an easterly wind, four days, reach to certain desert \nplaces full of rush and seaweed; which when it is ebb tide \nare not mersed; but when it is full tide are flooded." \n\nAristotle. \n\nThe tidal movement of the Atlantic may have furnished \na theme for " Wonderful Report" to the Greeks of Aris- \n\n\n\nSEA-COAST BAPTISM. 237 \n\ntotle\'s clay y but it has long since ceased to be classed \namong "wonders." \n\nThe baptism which took place under the operation of \nthe tidal wave, we understand, in all its features, as well \nas if we had formed a portion of the Phoenician party. \nThe modus of the baptism, as to the act done, is settled \nbeyond controversy. This is of the first importance. \nWhenever the mode of baptism is not expressly stated, \nour Baptist friends place their back against the word, and \nmake battle, d Voutrcmce, for "one meaning through all \nGreek literature," and that meaning \xe2\x80\x94 " dip, and nothing \nbut dip." And even here, where it is admitted that the \nmodal act, as declared,, is the very antipodal of dip, the \ngreat controversialist strenuously affirms that it is only, \nafter all, a more beautiful way of saying dip! But while \nCarson is bold enough to vindicate the Baptist dogma \nby the audacious transmutation of water flowing over an \nobject, into the dipping of an object into water, others, \nwho love the Baptist system as dearly as himself, are un- \nwilling to follow where they see common sense so hope- \nlessly wrecked. Still, even these decline to acknowledge \nthat they have misunderstood the force of the word, and \nevade the force of the staggering blow, received by their \nsystem, by slipping in a word to which is assigned, in \nexigencies, a double role ; and pass on from the sea-coast \nto other scenes of baptism, where "dip" can once more, \nwith some greater show of plausibility, be brought to the \nforeground. \n\nIt will be instructive to look with some particularity at \nthe manner in which leading Baptist writers treat this \nbaptism, all of whose elements are thoroughly understood, \nand without question from any quarter, seeing that it does, \non its face, crush the Baptist doctrine as to the meaning \nof /9a-T\xc2\xa3\'>. \n\n(1.) The following shows the deep impression, half ac- \ncepted, half rejected, made by the case on Dr. Gale : " Ba\xe2\x80\x94L \nZzaOat being used, here, to signify the land was under water, \nby the water\'s coming in upon it, and not by its being put \n\n\n\n238 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ninto the water, some, perhaps, may think it a considera- \nble objection ; but it will be found of no advantage to our \nadversaries, if it be observed, that it here necessarily and \nunavoidably imports to be under water, or to be over- \nwhelmed or covered with water; and this being the plain \nsense of this place, \'tis natural enough to say, as it were, \nor in a manner, or some such expression is to be under- \nstood. Besides, the word fiaxzi^w, perhaps, does not so \nnecessarily express the action of putting under water, as, \nin general, a thing\'s being in that condition, no matter \nhow it comes so, whether it is put into the water, or the \nwater comes over it; tho\' indeed to put into water is the \nmost natural way and the most common, and is, therefore, \nusually and pretty constantly, but it may be not necessarily \nrequired." \xe2\x80\x94 pp. 116, 117. \n\nIf this tidal wave did not carry the learned Gale high \nup on the shores of truth, it certainly did bring him very \nnear to its " coasts," and he has, thence, brought back a \nvery " Wonderful Report" to his Baptist brethren. He \ntells them, that the " sea-coasts, west of the Pillars of Her- \ncules, have quite unsettled his notion as to the meaning \nof poKTiZut. It sometimes, certainly, means one thing, and, \nperhaps, pretty constantly, means something quite the \ncontrary, but what it does really mean he will not under- \ntake to say." \n\nIn this " report" there is much of honesty, and no little \nof naivete. \n\n(2.) Dr. Carson has visited this same spot to inquire into \nthis famous classical baptism ; let us hear what he has to \nsay in relation to it. \n\n" Now, though the water comes over the land, and there \nis no actual exemplification of the mode expressed by this \nword, yet it still expresses that mode ; and the word has \nbeen employed for the very purpose of expressing it. The \npeculiar beauty of the expression consists in figuring the \nobject, which is successively bare and buried under water, \nas being dipped when it is covered, and as emerging when \nit is bare." \n\n\n\nSEA-COAST BAPTISM. 239 \n\nThis is a very imperial, not to say a very empirical, mode \nof disposing of Aristotle\'s contradiction of the Baptist ex- \nposition of a Greek word. Dr. Gale modestly confesses \nthat Aristotle\'s use of the word, so different from his own \nunderstanding of it, clouds the meaning. Dr. Carson says, \nit illuminates the meaning with all the effulgence of poetry \nand rhetoric. Dr. Gale once ventured to sport with figure \nand rhetoric, on a large scale, and " dipped a lake into \nthe blood of a frog." For this he was roundly chidden by \nCarson, who declared that " there never was such a figure," \nand pronounced it to be "a paradox in rhetoric." It is \nnow Gale\'s turn to rehearse in his teacher\'s ear the lesson \nwhich he received, and to inquire, " on what page of Rhet- \noric, or of the beauties of Poetry, we are to look for an \nindorsement of \'the peculiar beauty in figuring\' the sea- \ncoast as picked up and dipped iuto the rising tide?" \n"Without waiting for an answer to this inquiry, I would \nremark, that " the peculiar beauty" of this figure is sadly \nmarred by its being "lame of a leg." "Dip" requires \nboth that its object should be put into and taken out of \nthe water, or, to use the Doctor\'s language, be " buried \nand bare;" but unfortunately this was not Aristotle\'s no- \ntion of the meaning of iSo-tCUo, as he has employed it to \nexpress one of these conditions only, and used another \nword to express the other. Dr. Carson, therefore, in con- \nverting this very prosaic narrative into poetry, and making \nj3a-T{\':<o officiate as a dipper, can furnish him with but one \nleg to stand upon. \n\nThe transformation of "flowing over" into dipping into, \nis farther vindicated, thus: " Common conversation exem- \nplifies this mode of expression every day ; and mere chil- \ndren understand its import. When a person has been \ndrenched with rain, he will say that he has got a dipping. \nHere dipping does not lose its modal import, but immedi- \nately suggests it to the mind, and intends to suggest it. \nBut were the English language one of the dead languages, \nand this expression subjected to learned criticism, it would \n\n\n\n240 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nbe alleged that the word dipping does not denote mode, \nbut wetting without reference to mode." \n\nDr. Carson is not more happy in expounding the second- \nary use of dip (supposing it to have such use as he indi- \ncates), than in pointing out the rhetorical beauty of clipping \nthe sea-coast by the rise and fall of the tide. \n\nThe word "dipping" I have never heard used in the \nconnection stated ; but ducking (an equivalent word), I \nhave. " He was caught in the rain and got a ducking," \nis a phrase in familiar use. But it is amusing to hear \nDr. Carson say that the children (whether of smaller or \nlarger growth) who use such language "design" to give \nutterance to highly wrought rhetorical figure, " the pecu- \nliar beauty of which consists in figuring the object as suc- \ncessively bare and buried under water." Is it not marvel- \nlous that any one should think of affirming that a child \nwho speaks of " having got a ducking in a shower," means \nto flash before his playmates\' imagination a picture in \nwhich he is seen to go under and come out of the water \nof a mill-pond, or the like ! There is, now, before my eye \nan account of some boys who held one of their companions \nunder the pump, while others " ducked" him by pumping \nwater upon him. Is this, too, an elegantly rhetorical use of \nlanguage representing the object as successively " bare and \nburied"? In the sea-coast baptism there is a "bare and \nburied;" but where is it found in the shower dipping, or \nthe pump ducking f And in the coast baptism there is no \nbasis for such figure, because the twain are not one; but \neach is designated by an independent word. \n\nBefore " the English language is numbered with the \ndead" and given over to "learned criticism," I wish to \nsay, that both "clipping" and " ducking," as thus popu- \nlarly used, do mean, and can mean, nothing else, than \nsimply wetting without reference to mode. When Walter \nScott says, "the boat received the shower of brine which \nthe animal spouted aloft, and Triptolemus had a full share \nof the immersion," the use of " shower," and " full share," \nprecludes the idea of " design" to express " one mode of \n\n\n\nSEA-COAST BAPTISM. 241 \n\naction by another mode of action" in employing "im- \nmersion." There is no " mode of action" in immerse, \nand the word is used to emphasize " the fall share of" \nwetting. \n\nBut Carson is unwilling that any one should believe that \nAristotle writes Greek after a fashion which overturns the \nBaptist system; he, therefore, presses the point thus : " In \nthe same style we might say, that, at the flood, God im- \nmersed the mountains in the waters, though the waters \ncame over them." " Might say this" ? Why not say it? \nIs it not as proper to say that an object is " immersed" \nwhen " water comes over it," as when it is "put into the \nwater"? "What has "the immersion" to do with the one \nmode or the other mode ? Here is laid bare the vicious \nelement which runs through Baptist writings, to wit, the \nmaking "immerse" a verb of modal action: confounding \nit with dip; as, also, l3a-r(Za> is confounded with /5a-ro>. \nAnd worse than this is the use, as exigency requires, of \nimmerse, also, as an immodal word, with no intimation of \nthe double, groundless, and contradictory sense. God did \n" immerse the mountains in the waters of the flood;" but \nno one since the flood, except the very eminent contro- \nversialist of Tubbermore, ever thought of saying that in \nthis statement "immersed" is used with the design of \nexpressing, with great beauty of rhetoric, the lifting up \nof the mountains and dipping them into the flood ! \n\nIt is still farther urged: "The thing here supposed to \nbe baptized was wholly buried under water. Can any \nchild, then, be at a loss to learn from this that baptism \nmeans to lay wider water? Who, then, can be at a loss to \nknow the meaning of the word baptism ?" \n\nThen, after all, there was no baptism of the sea-coast. \nIt was only a " supposed" baptism ! Observe how uncom- \npromisingly Carson holds on to the idea that a baptism is \na dipping, and nothing else is. He stands by the dogma \nof Baptists in opposition to Aristotle ; because he knows \nthat to abandon it is to abandon the citadel of his denomi- \nnation, and to lower the controversial banner under which \n\n16 \n\n\n\n242 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthey have so long and so manfully done battle. Carson, \n" the man whose like will not arise for a thousand years," \nfelt that this was the point which Baptists had undertaken \nto defend against the world; he believed it to be true with \nall his heart, and because he believed it he cast in his lot \nwith them; and he felt that he could not give it up even \nwith Aristotle against him, for with it went, as he believed, \neverything. Now, when we see other Baptist writers com- \npelled to give up, what Carson felt was giving up all, what \nshall we think? Must they not change their judgment \nof their great Leader, or surrender? \n\n(3.) Dr. Fuller treats this passage thus : "A fourth case \ncited by Pcedobaptist authors is from Aristotle. It is \nproduced to show that Baptizo does not always mean the \nact of plunging. My position is that Baptizo means to \nimmerse. It matters not how the immersion is effected. \nAnd the passage is conclusive against those who ad- \nduce it." \n\nThis passage presents a very neat specimen of contro- \nversial tactics. It is confessed that the passage is cited \nagainst plunge, dip, et id omne genus, as the legitimate repre- \nsentatives of pa-ri\'w. Does Dr. Fuller deny that it crush- \ningly proves the point for which it is cited ? He is dumb \nwith silence. He has not a syllable to utter in defence of \nthose cherished terms. How, then, does it happen that \nthe passage is conclusive " against those who adduce it?" \nBut why was the passage cited ? Because Baptists for a \ncentury had proclaimed that " the word meant, always, \nto dip, to plunge." Does Dr. Fuller deny this? And why \ndoes he say, " My position is that Baptizo means to im- \nmerse" ? Why, because he is unwilling to go down in the \nBaptist boat sinking with its load of modalism, and he leaps \noverboard and swims to the shore, to lift up, not the old \nBaptist standard, but Dr. Fullefs \xe2\x80\x94 to wit, " My position \nis .that Baptizo means immerse. It matters not how the \nimmersion is effected." \n\nIf the passage cited has wrought with such tremendous \neffect, how is it "conclusive against those who adduce it"? \n\n\n\nSEA-COAST BAPTISM. 243 \n\nDoes Dr. Fuller say : "But you believe in baptism by \nsprinkling, and this is not such baptism." I answer: \nAVhcn we adduce this passage to prove baptism by sprink- \nling, it will be time enough to say, it makes against us; \nuntil then it will be sufficient for the Doctor to note the \nsweeping execution which it makes in the direction for \nwhich it was cited. \n\nIn the new legend under which Dr. Fuller rallies, soli- \ntary and alone, we must not fail sharply to notice the \nabsolute antagonism between the use of " immerse," and \nthe same word as used by Carson. The latter uses " im- \nmerse" as the equivalent of dip; the former repudiates all \nsuch affinity, and declares that there is no necessary con- \nnection between them, and " it matters not how the im- \nmersion is effected." It is because of facts like these, in \ndifferent writers, and in the same writer, that I complain \nof the "duplicity" which characterizes the use of this \nword. Carson builds his system on the use of dip and \nimmerse as interchangeable equivalents. Fuller makes \nthe corner-stone of "my position" the repudiation of \nthis doctrine, and builds on "immerse" divorced from \nmodalism. \n\nThe argument of Carson is pronounced by his friend to \nbe a failure. What fate awaits that which is proposed as \na substitute remains to be seen. The Doctor has a very \ncheering confidence in his success : " I have established, \nbeyond all controversy, what is the only meaning of Bap- \ntizo" (p. 20). Having secured such a prize, one would \nsuppose that he would hold it fast. But it seems not to \nbe prized over highly. "Witness the following : " You \nmay be immersed in any manner you choose; but sprink- \nling and pouring are not modes of immersion" (p. 15). \nThis is true only: 1. By abandoning "my position" \xe2\x80\x94 \n"immersion may be effected in any manner." Or, 2. By \nfalling back on the duplex use of immersion, and giving it \na modal character. For it is beyond denial that the con- \ndition of " immersion" may be effected by both sprinkling \nand pouring. Indeed he himself says : " Suppose a man \n\n\n\n244 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nshould lie in the baptistery while it is filling. The pour- \ning of the water would not be immersion,, yet an immer- \nsion would take place if he remained long enough." " If \nthe liquid is poured in such abundance that a baptism \n(immersion) follows, they cry out, There, how plain it is \nthat to pour and to baptize is the same thing." Not too \nfast. One thing at a time. 1. We have here the confes- \nsion that immersion may be effected by pouring, over \nagainst the denial that sprinkling and pouring are modes \nof immersion. 2. 7 As to " the cry" made in view of this \nfact, we prefer making i\' ourselves, and in doing so declare, \nnot that " to pour and to baptize are the same thing;" but \nthat pouring is a mode by which baptism may be effected; \nand add to our cry this farther, \xe2\x80\x94 no* well-informed person \nwill say that " to dip- and to baptize are the same thing." \nThus Fuller lowers the time-worn standard \xe2\x80\x94 " dipping is \nbaptizing, and baptizing is dipping," \xe2\x80\x94 " a definite act," \xe2\x80\x94 \n"mode, and nothing but mode," \xe2\x80\x94 and unfurls in its stead \nthe heretical motto \xe2\x80\x94 " immersion by pouring." \n\n(4.) Dr. Conant translates, without comment, "im- \nmersed;" and Professor Ripley translates both pamiZto and \nzaraiduZ<i> by "overflow;" with the remark, that " these two \nwords are equivalents." It may, certainly, be so used. \nBut I would ask Professor Ripley if he ever knew pdima \nand xaraxXbW to be used as equivalents ? \n\nBaptist writers have been allowed to speak freely on \nthis passage ; and we have seen the faith of Gale in modal- \nism sadly shaken by the baptizing billows ; while that of \nFuller is wholly swept away. Carson, with unflinching \ncourage, holds on to modality in its severest forms, and, \nwith a boldness above that of England\'s king, plants his \nsystem by the sea-shore, and as the ocean billows dash \nover him and it, proclaims, from out the flood, " that it is \nonly a supposed baptism, and the Prince of Philosophers \nonly means to declare him beautifully dipped." \n\nAlexander Carson, LL.D., is a true representative man. \nHe is the last of the giants among old-fashioned modal \nBaptists. No other such man will ever say \xe2\x80\x94 " to baptize \n\n\n\ncupid\'s baptism, 245 \n\nis to dip., and to dip is to baptize." lie claims the record, \n" If dipping could have been defended by any right hand, \nit would have been defended by this." \n\n\n\n"3." "I found Cupid among the roses, and holding \nhim by the wings I mersed him into the wine, and took \nand drank him." Julian, Egypt. \n\n"5." But when the Sun had mersed himself into the \nOcean flood. Oupheus. \n\nThe use of efe in these passages does not prove that \n$a.Trri*u> expresses motion. All languages employ verbs ex- \npressive simply of position or condition in connection with \nprepositions which imply the existence of movement. In \nsuch cases the most commonly received interpretation is \nthat which supplies a verb of motion. \n\nKiihner ^ives the following examples : l<pdvQ lis eiq 6d6v \xe2\x80\x94 \n\ncrdq iq p.i<7ov \xe2\x80\x94 r.apr^av slq ^apdeiq \xe2\x80\x94 eq ttjv lalaiuva vxixeiTat. \n\nVirgil exhibits similar usage : Sol qaoque, et exoriens, et \nquum se condit in undas. Ovid : Mergit in ima ratem. Seneca: \nMergere ad Styga. The verb of motion involved in this \nlatter phrase is expressed in a parallel passage by Ovid: \nJfersa, Stygias penetrant in undas. \n\nThe same usage obtains in English : He buried the ball \ninto the icood. They landed the troops into Fort Pickens. \n\n"To appear," "to stand," "to be," "to lie," &c, do \nnot express movement, yet they are conjoined with prepo- \nsitions which require movement. In all the above cases \nsuch a verb must be supplied. The same is true with \nregard to PeaniZa when it is used with efe, which usage is \nnot frequent, and contrasts, in this respect, with that of \nfid-TiD. This interpretation is sustained by the use of the \nword in such cases as that of " the coast baptism," and in \nall cases where the nature of che act affecting the condition \n13 such as no one thinks of assigning to /3\xc2\xab-r\xc2\xa3\'i>. \n\nThe mersion of Cupid is not a dipping, for he remains \n\n\n\n246 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nmersed in the wine until lie is swallowed down by the \ndrinker, within whom his "titillating wings" are soon \nfelt. \n\n\n\n" 2." And fishing-rod triply stretched, and cork un- \nmersed by water. Archias. \n\n" 4." We wondered, therefore, seeing them not mersed, \nbut sustained above the waves. Lttuian. \n\n" 7." A bladder, thou mayest be mersed ; but there is \nno decree for thee to sink. Pujtakch. \n\nNo modality of act can be gathered from these passages. \nThe first two are negative, exhibiting their objects in an \nunmersed condition; and thus sustain the view that a bap- \ntized object is one which is brought into a definite condition, \nand not one which is made the subject of a definite action. \n\nThe third passage is an oracular response in reference \nto the fate of Athens. The interpretation of the passage \nturns on the nature of a skin filled with air. This may, \nby force, be placed in a state of mersion; but its nature is \nsuch that it makes constant resistance to a continuance in \nthat state ; and whenever the mersing power is removed, \nit will rise again to the surface unharmed, for a state of \nmersion is not destructive to a bladder. "To sink" is not \na distinctive translation of duvw, nor is it easy to furnish \none; it is used as an equivalent of fiaTrriZw; the idea being, \nthat while the bladder might be mersed, for an indefinite \ntime, it was not to continue in a state of mersion. The \ncity might be subjected temporarily to foreign influences, \nbut would recover from them. \n\nCarson translates: " Thou mayest be dipped, bladder, \nbut thou art not fated to sink." On which Dr. Halley \nmakes the following criticism : " And is it not surprising, \nif anything could surprise us, in the impetuous movements \nof theological controversy, that Dr. Carson should, in so \nmany other places, render fia-riZuj to sink, or at least sur- \n\n\n\nARMOR BAPTISM. 247 \n\nreptitiously introduce that word as its representative, but \nhere should make this self-same sink, his most obsequious \nservant, come out the antagonist of baptize, and in oppo- \nsition to the characteristic meaning of that word ? Ob- \nserve the tactics of the great defender of the Baptists. \n"What is to baptize ? Something contrasted with sinking, \nfor so he expounds the oracle, and yet something identified \nwith sinking; for that word he often employs as its repre- \nsentative, as baptized in debt is, according to him, sunk \nin debt. What is the difference between paxriZu) and Suva? \nThe former is only to dip, the latter to sink, according to \np. 61. To sink serves both for the synonyme and for the \nopposite of baptize, as it may be needed, and therefore we \nsay, expurgate the book from that treacherous word, with \nwhich it is so easy to play fast and loose throughout the \ncontroversy" (p. 85). \n\nThis " surreptitious" use of sink and other words (among \nwhich should be named, with emphasis, immerse) utterly \nvitiates Carson\'s argument. Without the lawless inter- \nchange of words, widely removed in meaning, no plausi- \nbility could be given to the position, " /3a-nto> always means \nto dip." \n\n\n\n" 6." And dying they filled the lake with dead bodies; \nso that to the present many barbaric arrows, and helmets, \nand pieces of iron breastplates and swords, mersed-in the \nmarshes, are found. Plutarch. \n\nHere is a condition of mersion in which these weapons \nand pieces of armor are found after the lapse of a long \nseries of years. It will require Carson to rise from the \ndead to pronounce this a case of dipping. His mantle has \nfallen on no living man. All these bows, helmets, breast- \nplates, swords, were equally mersed. Who will say that \nthey were mersed by the same modal act ? If by acts of \ndiverse modality, who will say that pa-x^io represents acts \ncontrariant in character? Who can believe that it makes \n\n\n\n248 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthe slightest difference to this word how these articles got \ninto this mersed condition ? And does not the long repose \nof these relics in a state of mersion cast shame on any \ntheory which takes panriZai for its corner-stone, and carves \non it in capitals \xe2\x80\x94 " to dip, and nothing but dip " ? \n\nThe Greek word is compounded, in this passage, with lv, \nand is translated by Dr. Conant "zm-merse." Thus no \ndifference is made between the compound and the un- \ncompounded word. And, farther, the preposition is local, \nand whether translated merse-in or immerse, the prepo- \nsition only gives position to the articles mersed. This is \nalways the force of the compound im-merse. The local \npreposition, or the element in which without a preposition, \nis rarely expressed. The word itself, as expressive of con- \ndition, carries (in primary use) locality with it, and the \nsubject-matter shows the element. It is more necessary \nto state the mersing agency ; and when the simple dative \nis used, it is employed to express such agency. \n\nThe passage exhibits, very fairly, the meaning of the \ncontested word. And there is no point of sympathy with \nthe Baptist theory. " But it makes against those who \nadduce it," says Dr. Fuller. May-be not. At any rate, \nwe shall have a plea to enter, in good time, so that judg- \nment will not go against us by default. \n\n\n\n" 12." Alexander falling upon the stormy season, and \ntrusting, commonly, to fortune, pressed on before the flood \nwent out, and through the entire day the army marched \nmersed up to the waist. Strabo. \n\n" 8." They marched through with difficulty, the infantry \nbeing mersed up to the breasts. Polybius. \n\nCarson (p. 58) says: "Polybius applies it to soldiers \nwading through deep water. Does not this decisively de- \ntermine the meaning of baptizo? They were not, indeed, \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY MARCHING. 249 \n\nplungecl overhead. That only was baptized which was \nburied. The soldiers in passing through the water were \ndipped as far as the breast." \n\nWas there ever such a medley of words! Baptized by \nleading, baptized by plunging, baptized by barging, baptized \nby dipping! What a commentary on "the one meaning \nthrough all Greek literature," and that meaning, " mode, \nand nothing but mode." Some think the good people of \nIreland a little disloyal; but I did not know that the charge \ncovered such disloyal use of the King\'s or Queen\'s English \nas to say that, men walking through the water all day were \ndipped! Such confusion of terms and ideas gives indubit- \nable proof of fundamental error in the conception of the \nmeaning of the word. \n\nThe only act causative of this mersed condition of the \nsoldiers is that of "wading" (Carson), "passing through" \n(Conant), or, technically, marching. Now, does the Greek \nword mean to wade, to pass through, to march? Yes, if \nit expresses the act which produces the mersion. No, if \nit expresses the condition resultant from any form of act \ncompetent to effect it. "Which view does common sense \nand the laws of language sustain? Besides, we have the \nact producing the mersion stated by another word, (Sia- \npabio). "Going through" neither dips nor plunges. It \ndoes merse. \n\nSpeaking of the first of the above quotations, Carson \nsays : " Dr. Gale gives some striking examples from \nStrabo;" and, then, he and Gale join in translating i3a-TiZu> \nby "sink," " sink or dipped." Then Carson adds: "Now, \nin these several passages, the modal meaning of the word \nis confirmed in so clear, express, and decisive a manner, \nthat obstinacy itself cannot find a plausible objection." \n\nIt may be that no objection can be found against the \ntestimony of such passages when adduced to prove that \n" -ia-~l%u> means to dip, always, and never expresses any- \nthing but mode;" for an objection implies general truth, \nor some truth, or, at least, an appearance of truth, while \n\n\n\n250 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthe offer of the testimony of such passages to prove a \nmodal dipping is simply the baldest absurdity. \n\nIf Dr. Carson were to take the passage from Aristotle \xe2\x80\x94 \n" The berry, being pressed, moistens (fid-ret) and colors the \nhand," and translate it \xe2\x80\x94 " The berry, being pressed, dips \n(fid-ret) and dyes the hand/\' \xe2\x80\x94 then urge it as proving "the \nmodal meaning of dip, in so clear, express, and decisive a \nmanner, that obstinacy itself cannot find an objection," \nhis assumption, that his readers have not intelligence above \nidiocy, would not be more manifest than, when, he adduces \nsuch passages as that from Strabo as proof of the modal \nact of dipping. \n\nAs the ocean tide flows over the Baptist theory, and \nmerses it beyond redemption, so, every heel of the march- \ning armies of Strabo and Polybius tramples on it, and \nleaves it drowned beneath the waters. \n\n\n\n" 10." Being innocent, he advances, unhesitatingly, hav- \ning the water to the knees; but when guilty, proceeding a \nshort distance he is mersed up to the head. Porphyry. \n\nThis transaction is represented as occurring at a lake in \nIndia, which, according to the Brahmins, has the power \nof revealing character. \n\nThis is another case of baptism by walking. Or, will \nany one say that the walking into the water and the bap- \ntizing were two distinct acts; that after " walking into the \nwater up to his knees," he was then dipped " up to his \nhead;" that mersion by walking is no baptism, while mer- \nsion by dipping is baptism? Will Professor Ripley say \nthis ? He does say (as we have seen), " E"o one believes \nthat the going down into the water is the baptism; these \ntwo things are perfectly distinct : the baptism takes place \nafter the descent into the water; it is expressed by another \nword." Well, Polybius, and Porphyry, and Strabo, had a \ndifferent notion of baptism from the Professor. They \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY FALLING. 251 \n\nthought that the action of walking was quite competent to \neffect a baptism without the help of any other word. If \nthese sinners were dipped or plunged, we should, indeed, \nneed another word ; but Porphyry manages the baptism \nby the sole aid of -xpopalvu). Surely, this passage brings \nneither aid nor comfort to the upholders of the dogma, \n"Baptizing is dipping, and dipping is baptizing." Por- \nphyry, certainly, was a stranger to the doctrine. But, \nu the passage makes against those who adduce it." Is this \nthe only wine and oil which can be found to alleviate the \ndeadly wounds of Baptist theory ? Remember, " a wise \nman does not determine a matter before he heareth it." \nWait and hear. \n\n\n\n" 9." Although the spear should fall out into the sea, it \nis not lost; for it is constructed out of both oak and pine, \nso that the oaken part being mersed by the weight, the \nrest is floating and easily recovered. Polybius. \n\nThe modal act in this baptism is sinking. So much of \nthe spear as is mersed, is mersed by the act of sinking in \nconsequence of greater specific gravity. Now, shall we \non this account say, fia-Ti%u> expresses the modal act of \nsinking? \n\nThere is no dipping in the passage. The axe which fell \ninto the Jordan and sank, was not clipped. The fish-spear \nwhich fell out of the vessel and sank, so far as it became \nmersed, was not dipped. Whether it was recovered im- \nmediately, or whether it be unrecovcrcd to this hour, does \nnot affect the nature of the transaction. The action of \nfalling and sinking cannot be converted into the action of \ndipping. Nor can the condition of mersion, the result of \nthe action of falling and sinking, undergo the metamor- \nphosis of passing out of condition into this twofold, or any \nother form of action. \n\nThe weight, causing the mersion, is expressed by the \n\n\n\n252 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ndative without a preposition; which is the common mode \nof indicating the baptizing power. \n\n\n\n" 11." To one throwing down a javelin, from above, \ninto the channel, the force of the water resists so much \nthat it is hardly mersed. Strabo. \n\nThis is the case of a stream flowing rapidly through \na contracted channel. The act of baptism is " throwing \ndown." This is as good a modal act for baptizing as any \nother, of some scores, that might be mentioned. Shall we \nappend it to the list of meanings expressed by that mar- \nvellous Greek word? Or, wearied with such havoc made \nof the laws of language, shall we exclaim \xe2\x80\x94 Ohe I jam \nsatis est. \n\nRESULTS. \n\nAll the cases of primary use, in w^hich the mersed object \nremains uninfluenced by the mersion, have, now, been \nexamined. Most persons will accept the following results : \n\n1. The confounding together of such widely separated \nwords as fid*\xe2\x84\xa2 and panTi^co is as surprising as it is unwar- \nranted. \n\nThese Words have spheres of their own, and as they do \nnot, in truth, trench on each other, so they should not, by \nour error, be made to do so. \n\nBapting is not Baptizing, neither is Baptizing Bapting. \n\n2. To represent paitT(Za> by dip is wholly destitute of \nauthority from Greek writers. \n\n3. The corner-stone of the Baptist system \xe2\x80\x94 " Dipping \nis Baptizing, and Baptizing i3 Dipping," is pure error. \nWhile the attempt to sustain that system by the admix- \nture of dip and immerse is a mixing together of iron and \nclay, which truth will break in pieces. \n\n\n\nRESULTS. 253 \n\n4. Any attempt to make /fcwrr&i express, immediately, \nform of action and not condition, must prove abortive, \nbecause unfounded in truth. \n\n5. The demand of peacrgto is for intusposition. To secure \nthis it lays equal claim upon any act, or upon any number \nof acts, which may be competent and needful to meet the \ndemand. \n\n6. While some objects remain unaffected by intusposi- \ntion within a fluid, or other closely investing element, it is \nobvious, that such a condition gives fullest opportunity for \nthe exercise of the peculiar influence of the investing \nelement over the enveloped object. \n\n7. Ba-~(Z<o is without limitation of power, object, or du- \nration. Limitations, in these respects, must come outside \nof itself. \n\n"We now proceed to consider that class of baptisms which \ninfluences the object baptized. \n\n\n\n254 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nINTUSPOSITION WITH INFLUENCE. \n\n1. "O-cot; to jjlsv ftanTiZopcvov rrjs vrjdq dvaxoutptGatpsv. \n\nAchilles Tat. iii, 1. \n\n2. Kdi iJ.ty.pov fia7ZTiZ\xc2\xa3zai to Gxdcpoq. tl " iii, 1. \n\n3. Ba-ri^et too )<oyiGpoo rqv dvaizvorjv. u " iv, 10. \n\n4. Tr,<z vsajs xivdwwouar^ pantriZeaOai. JEsop, Shepherd and the Sea. \n\n5. Trfj (I\'oyrp ayav fisfia-TtGpivTjv rw Gcopart. Alex. Aphrod. i, 28. \n\n6. Be^aizrtff/iivTjv \xc2\xa3v rip fidOei too Gwparoq. " iC ii, 38. \n\n7. ^AOpouic, zaTafia-TtZe\'. xdi ffftivvufft. " " i, 16. \n\n8. UeptXr^Oivra dtacpdicpsrat ^durt^opsva. Diod. Sic. i, 36. \n\n9. Tfj-z S\xc2\xa3 \\>scb$ fia-riGOiiGr^, Tapa-pi xar(G%\xc2\xa3. " " xi, 18. \n\n10. Karatpspopzw; TzoXXooq \xc2\xa3@d7CTt\xc2\xa3e. " xvi, 80. \n\n11. Td re izlola. . . . vaoloyoovra ^a-rcGdr^vat. \n\nDion. Cass. Horn. Hist, xxxvii, 58. \n\n12. 0\\ dk xai 6~b rod fidpooz abrcbv ftaTZTtGHvrsq. \n\nDion. Cass. Rom. Hist, xli, 42. \n\n13. 0\\ ph 6~d zoo nvsoparos \xc2\xa3fia-ri%ovro. \n\nDion. Cass. Bom. Hist, lxxiv, 18. \n\n14. "0q vov rerdprqv ypipav fiaacriZertu. Eubulus. Nausicaa. \n\n15. \'Ev vrp. peydXy rdicov PazTiZeadat. Epictet. Mor. Dis. xi. \n\n16. "Hdrj dk iSaizriXopivw xai xaxaSbvai pixpfo. Heliod. JEthiop. V, 28. \n\n17. Try vT t a rLoXXoiffi (popTUuai fta-Tiaavxa. Hippocrates, iii, 809. \n\n18. Kdi dviizveev wq ix too fcfiaxTiaOai. iii, 571. \n\n19. c \xc2\xa3? fia-riaUvToq. . . . w<; ts fep fuotOqwai. Homer, Life of; ii, 26. \n\n20. Kdi k\'rt b Tti> awpaxi fitfia-Tiapb-Q. Plotinus, Ennead. i, 8, 13. \n\n21. \' \' A-spirpe-Tov xdi apd-riGtov. Plutarch, Animals, xxxv. \n\n22. T-\' do-ujv PaiZTgofiwot xdi xardduyovreq. Polyhius, Hist. V, 47. \n\n23. \'Oods yap ro~iq dzoXopftotq fiaxriXzGOai aufiftabet. Strabo, vi, 2, 9. \n\n24. Myds PaitTi\'eGQai rov Ipfidvra. " xiv, 2, 42. \n\n25. \' \'EpaTZTtZovro 6-d r? t q TzavoTzUaq. Suidas, Lexicon. \n\n\n\nQUOTATIONS. 255 \n\n\n\nBAPTISM WITH INFLUENCE. \n\n1. That we might raise up the mersed part of the ship. \n\n2. And the ship is nearly mersed. \n\n3. Merses the breathing of the intellect. \n4 The ship in hazard of being mersed. \n\n5. The soul being mersed very much by the body. \n\n6. Mersed in the depth of the body. \n\n7. Suddenly demerses and quenches the vital warmth. \n8 Many inclosed by the river perish, being mersed. \n\n9. His ship having been mersed, confusion seized the fleet, \nin. Carrying down many, mersed and destroyed them. \n\n11. And ships anchored were mersed. \n\n12. And others perished, mersed, by their own weight, in the \n\nvery vessels. \n\n13. Some were mersed by the wind, using it immoderately. \n\n14. Who is mersed, now, the fourth day. \n\n15. To be mersed sailing in a large and elegant vessel. \n\n16 Mersed and ready to go down. \n\n17 Mersed the ship by much freight. \n\n18. And breathed as one out of a state of mersion. \n\n19. So mersed as to be warmed. \n\n20. Mersed, still, in the body. \n\n21. Not liable to be overturned and un-mersible. \n\n22. Mersed by themselves and sinking in the marshes. \n\n23. It does not happen to those unable to swim to be mersed. \n24 Xor is one entering it mersed, but lifted out. \n\n25. They were mersed by the full armor. \n\n\n\n256 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nPAKTICTJLAK CASES EXAMINED. \nBAPTISM BY STORM. \n\n1. " We all, therefore, changed our position to the \nhigher parts of the ship, that we might raise up the mersed \npart of the vessel." Achilles Tatius. \n\n2. " The wind changes suddenly to the other side of \nthe ship, and it is nearly mersed." Achilles Tatius. \n\n4. " A severe storm occurring, and the ship in hazard \nof being mersed, throwing out all the cargo into the sea, \nhe was hardly saved by the empty ship." ^Esop. \n\n9. " The commander was slain, and his ship being \nmersed, confusion seized the fleet of the barbarians." \n\nDlODORUS SlCULUS. \n\n11. " The vessels which were in the Tiber, and an- \nchored at the city and at its mouth, were mersed." \n\nDion Cassius. \n\n15. " As you would not wish, sailing in a large and \nelegant and gilded ship, to be mersed."\' Epictetus. \n\n16. " Already being mersed and wanting little of going \ndown, some of the pirates, at first, attempted to pass into \ntheir own boat." Heliodorus. \n\n17. " Shall I not ridicule one mersing his ship by much \nfreight, the blaming the sea for sinking it full." \n\nHippocrates. \n\n21. " Of many models, the only one not to be overturned \nand unmersible." Plutarch. \n\n(1.) All these cases, except the last, refer to the loss of \nvessels at sea by storm or otherwise. Such cases are too \nfully self-explicative to need detailed remarks. BdxTw is \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY STORM. 257 \n\nnever used in such cases, and, thus, is separated from \n\n(2.) To sink is the final act of mersion in all these cases, \nyet Baptists never bring this word into the foreground as \ntheir meaning, although "dip" has no claims in compari- \nson with it. It is, not unfrequently, slipped in as a ne- \ncessity. \n\n(3.) Conant commonly translates such cases by " sub- \nmerged." Why sub-merged rather than wn-merged or \nim-mersed, if all mean the same thing ? And, why these \nprepositions and diversities when the Greek word has \nnone, and remains the same? \n\n(4.) He also translates, in the third passage, "Saved in \nthe empty ship." In itself considered, this is of no mo- \nment* yet, as the dative case claims an important position \namong the determining elements of this inquiry, we should \nstudy accuracy and uniformity in all such cases. \n\nThis dative is without a preposition, and is not locative \nIt is, indeed, true that the shepherd was saved in the ship, \nbut this is not the fact designed to be stated. He was in \nthe ship, loaded or empty, and, of course, he was to be \nsaved in the ship; but we are told that he could not be \nsaved by a loaded ship, and, therefore, he tried to save him- \nself by an empty ship, and was successful. The point of \nthe statement is. that by a loaded ship he would be lost, \nwhile by an empty ship he would be saved. \n\nThe importance of the passage is not in the sentiment, \nbut in securing the proper treatment of the case. \n\n(5.) All these cases exhibit the mersion as attended \nwith influence in the highest degree. It is destructive in \nits nature. \n\nIn all the usage of fid-no there is nothing which ap- \nproaches this, either in measure or kind. \n\n(6.) The duration of the mersion, in connection with \nthese facts, has not yet run out; although, in some cases, \n\n17 \n\n\n\n258 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nit has already lasted two thousand years. It will continue \nuntil " the seas give up their dead." Mersion is not, ne- \ncessarily, of prolonged duration; but it is without any \nself-limitation. It is permanent, except made otherwise \nby some extraneous influence. \nDoes this look like a dipping ? \n\n(7.) It is the indefinitely long continuance of mersion \nwhich qualifies it to exert a controlling influence over \nobjects physically mersed, and which makes it the repre- \nsentative word for any controlling influence (not asso- \nciated with physical mersion), however that influence be \ninduced. \n\n\n\nINTtTSPOSITION WITH INFLUENCE. \nBAPTISM BY WEIGHT. \n\n12. " Crowds of them fleeing perished ; some in em- \nbarking upon the boats, thrown down by the press; \nothers, even in the boats mersed by their own weight." \n\nDiox Cassius. \n\n13. " Attempting to escape, some way or other, some \nof them were mersed by the wind, using it immoderately; \nothers were destroyed, being overtaken by the enemy." \n\nDiox Cassius. \n\n22. "But mersed by themselves, and sinking in the \nmarshes, were all useless, and many of them were de- \nstroyed." POLYBITJS. \n\n* 23. "Pools near Agrigentum have the taste of salt \nwater, but a different nature; for it does not happen to \nthe unskilled in swimming to be mersed." Strabo. \n\n24. " Then floating, through the nature of the water, \naccording to which, we have said, to swim was not neces- \nsary; nor is one entering it mersed, but lifted out." \n\nStrabo. \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY BOILING-UP. 259 \n\n25. " They were mersed by the full armor." Suidas. \n\nIn all these cases of mersion "the act of baptism" is \nsink, and nothing but sink. Yet I do not know of anv \nBaptist writer who gives this act as the act of baptism. \nRecognized it has to be; but it is an acquaitance to which \nthey have no partiality; in whose presence they do not feel \ncomfortable, and from whom they part as soon as possible. \n\nThere is, of course, a reason for this. What it is, it is \nnot difficult to discover. There is too wide a gulf between \ndip and sink for the patrons of the former to extend their \ncountenance to the latter. Sink is a very explicit and \nhomely English word, that everybody can understand, and \nto say that the " one meaning running through all Greek \nliterature" is sink, would be to sink the cause; therefore, \nit is toned down into the Latinism \xe2\x80\x94 " sub-merged." \n\nIt would hardly answer to insist on a divine command \n" to sink men in water;" but if a modal act must be as- \nsigned to the Greek word, none has a better claim than \nsink. The truth, however, is, that such is not its meaning; \nand to look for its meaning in any such direction is fruit- \nful only in disappointment. Sink, like a cloud of other \nwords, puts its object in a state of mersion; but neither it \nnor they can claim to be expressed, distinctively, by famiCd). \n\nThe influence of this mersion is destructive. \n\nBAPTISM BY FLOWING OR UPRISING. \n\n2. " The blood boiling up, through great force, often \noverflows the veins, and flowing round the head within, \nmerses the breathing (passage) of the intellect." \n\nAchilles Tatitjs. \n\n6. "Why do some, being alarmed, die? Because the \nphysical power fleeing, overmuch, into the depth, with the \nblood, all at once sub-merses and quenches the natural and \nvital warmth which is at the heart, and causes death." \n\nAlexander Aphrodisias. \n\n\n\n260 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n7. " Many of the land animals, surrounded by the river, \nperish, being mersed; but some, fleeing to the high places, \nare saved." Diodorus Siculus. \n\n9. " The river, with a stronger current, rolling down, \nmersed many, and, swimming through with their arms, \ndestroyed them." Diobortts Sicxtlus \n\nVery brief comment will suffice for these passages. \n\n\n\n" 2." This is the case of a person who has fallen down, \nin a state of unconsciousness. \n\n"Whelm" (Conant). This translation ignores "the act \nof baptism." That act was "flowing round" (nepcxXuZw), \nwhich is materially different from dip. Such cases show \nhow vain is the attempt to* fasten on to pazrgm the form \nof any act, whatever, by which an object is put into a fluid \nelement; and, no less, any attempt to stamp it with the \nform of any movement by which a fluid is brought upon \nits object. It is only surprising that such an attempt \nshould ever have been made. Should it be persevered \nin, I nominate, as a worthy candidate, for "the one modal \nmeaning through all Greek literature" \xe2\x80\x94 -flowing round I \n\n\n\n"6." The act of baptism is the sarnie with the preced- \ning, \xe2\x80\x94 flowing of the blood. \n\n"Whelm" (Conant). Whelm neither immerses nor im- \nmerges (in the sense put into); nor submerges (in the \nsense put, moving the object, under); nor dips, nor \nplunges, nor imbathes (in the sense bathing by putting \ninto). If this be a just and distinctive translation, what \nbecomes of dip and plunge as distinctive translations ? \n\nBut the point of special interest,, in this passage, is the \nunanswerable proof which it furnishes, that a heated body \nmay be "quenched" by pouring, or, in any other way, \nbringing water over a heated mass. The vital warmth \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY WATER AND BLOOD. 261 \n\nwas baptized and quenched by blood pouring over it. \nBaptist writers have ever insisted, most uncompromis- \ningly, that there was but one way in which heated metals \ncould be quenched by baptism, and that was by dipping \nthem into water. This error is, here, made patent. The \nmode which is orthodox for baptizing the vital warmth, is \nequally orthodox for baptizing heated metal. \n\n\n\n" 7." The inundation of the Kile is the subject of de- \nscription. \n\nIt seems hardly credible that Carson should offer this as \na case of modal dipping, and yet it is even so. It is well \nto have a writer who uses a pen which leaves a mark so \nbold in character, that he who runs may read, as otherwise \nit would soon be questioned that such extravagant views \nwere ever held, or that it was ever said, that "fkacrga meant \ndip and nothing else." This is his language: " The w T hole \nlaud, overwhelmed, might be said to be modally dipped, \nby catachresis, and that the animals would at first swim, \nand then sink, and be entirely immersed. The* sinking \nof animals is here called baptism. What, then, is baptism \nbut immersion?" \n\nHere is a melange of words which exhibits a remarkable \nrhetorical and logical monstrosity. Egypt might, by the \nXile\'s inundation, " be said to be modally dipped.\'" Un- \ndoubtedly it might be so said; but not outside of a lunatic \nasylum. But if Egypt, or any part of it, might be said to \nbe " modally dipped," Diodorus says nothing about the \nland being dipped or baptized, but the animals only. \nMight it, also, be said that these drowned animals were \n" modally dipped by catachresis"? Such catachrcstic dip- \npings would not answer in Tubbcrinore baptisms. But \n"the animals swim, then sink, then are immersed." Can \nthere be the shadow of a doubt as to the sense in which \n"immersed" is, here, used? Is there any possibility for \nits meaning to dip, even " by catachresis"? Does it not \nrepresent the condition of the animals after sinking, and \n\n\n\n262 CLASSIC BAPTISM, \n\nas a consequence of the act of sinking? Is there not, \ntherefore, an elimination of the expression of act on its \nown part? And this is the true and only proper use of \nthe word. But Dr. Carson tells us, in the opening of his \nbook, that the modal act dip, and immerse, are equiva- \nlents; while, here, he uses it stripped of all modal act, and \nexpressive of condition resultant from the act of sinking. \nSuch is the duplicity of use (not of intention) which marks \nthis word. " The sinking of animals is here called bap- \ntism." This is error. It is neither here said, nor can it \nbe said, that sinking is baptism. The one word expresses \nan act, and the other a condition. They cannot, with any \npropriety, be interchanged. Sink, on this occasion, as \nflow, fall, throw, walk, &c, &c, &c, on other occasions, \nexpresses the form of the act by which the drowning-bap- \ntism took place. \n\n" What, then, is baptism but immersion ? " Logic would \nreply : " If the sinking of animals is called baptism," then \n"baptism must be sinking" But this would not answer \nBaptist need, nor "the one meaning throughout Greek \nliterature;" therefore, the duplicity-word \xe2\x80\x94 immersion \xe2\x80\x94 \nmust be slipped in, and in a sense which gives it mode. \nFor if sinking is baptism and baptism is immersion, then \nimmersion is the modal act, \xe2\x80\x94 sinking ; which is not true. \nThe passage reminds us, very forcibly, of " nodding \nHomer." Indeed, Dr. Carson\'s book of half a thousand \npages, so far as intended to prove that " /SoottjTw means to \ndip and nothing but dip," is one long nod. \n\nDr. Fuller expounding the passage says, "the violent \ncurrent sank many." The Doctor forgets that the sea- \ncoast Baptism made him flee from a modal act to immodal \nimmerse \xe2\x80\x94 exclaiming, with conscious relief, " My position \nis that poirci\'to means to immerse." "Why has that position \nbeen abandoned for this sinking position ? Are immerse \nand sink the same? The sea-coast was admitted to be \nneither dipped nor plunged; was it " sunk"? \n\nBaptist writers (seeing that the suggestion of difficulty \nin the translation of this word is all " a pretence," and \n\n\n\nBAPTISM THROUGH FOUR DAYS. 263 \n\nthat it has but one meaning, of which they are the perfect \nmasters) present themselves, in their writings, in a rather \nremarkable aspect by such colliding translations. \n\n\n\n" 9." This is a death baptism by a strong river current. \n\nThese baptisms are a sort of dipping hardly contem- \nplated in "Baptizing is dipping, and dipping is bapti- \nzing." They exhibit an influence exerted over their object \nsuch as no Greek ever used /5a\'7rrw to express, and to which \nno one, in a sane mind, would apply dip. \n\nBAPTISM THROUGH FOUR DAYS- \n\n" 12." " Who is mersecl, now the fourth day, wearing \naway the life of a miserable, starveling mullet." \n\nEubulus. \n\n"Immerged" (Conant). Why, rather than immersed, \ndipped, plunged, I do not know. He says : "It is spoken \nwith comic extravagance of one whose vessel is wrecked \nin a storm, and a prey to the ingulfing floods." A trans- \nlation from the Athenseus of Schweighauser is given: \n\n" Qui nunc quartum in diem undis mergitur \nJejunum miseri mugilis terens vitam." \n\nA similar translation is given in Athencei Dcipnosophista- \nru?n, Lugduni, 1612 : \n\n"Quartum jam diem, in aqua, mergitur \nMiseilique jSfestios Cestrei vitam agit." \n\nDr. Fuller takes a different view of the passage : " Athen- \nseus quotes an ancient author, who says of a drunken man: \nHe is drowned or sunk (baptized) now the fourth day, \nleading the life of a miserable mullet." \n\nThe limited examination which I have been able to give \nthe passages, in a library some distance from my home, \ndoes not warrant my acting as umpire between these par- \nties. Whether this unfortunate man was " immerged," or \n\n\n\n264 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n" drowned," or " sunk," or " made drunk," his case is a \nmuch more serious one than it could have been under any \ncondition of dipping. \n\n"Four days" is along time to pass through the process \nof dipping. \n\n\n\n" 16." "For, indeed, hereby he shows greater emphasis, \nas if the sword were so mersed as to be warmed." \n\nHomer\'s Life and Poetry. \n\n"Imbathed" (Conant). "Who refers to Iliad, xxi, 476 \n(xx, 476, it should be), and xvi, 333, for the passages which \ninduce the comment. \n\nI see nothing in Homer which implies that the entire \nsword was within the body in either case. Nor does the \ncomment require that the critic supposed any such thing. \nHe only says that the sword was so baptized as to be \nheated. Warm blood covering a sword, more or less, \nmight heat the entire blade, or be poetically supposed to \ndo so. \n\niwi-bathe has no right to represent pairciZu>. The sword \nwas warmed by blood and not in it. The sword was so \nbaptized with blood as to be warmed by it. \n\nThe baptism was one of decided influence. \n\n\n\nBAPTISM OF THE SOUL. \n\n" 4." " They have the soul very much mersed by the \nbody, and therefore the seminal element partaking in the \nhighest degree of the rational and physical power, makes \nits offspring more intelligent." Alexander Aphrodisias. \n\n" 5." "Because they have their nature and perceptive \npower mersed in the depth of the body." Alex. Aphrod. \n\n"17." "She dies, therefore, as the soul may die; and \ndeath to her, even yet mersed in the body, is to sink in \nmatter, and to be filled of it." Plotinus. \n\n\n\nBAPTISM OF THE SOUL. 265 \n\n(1.) We, naturally, notice first, that the investing ele- \nment is not a fluid but a corporal body. It is similar to \nthe use of mergo with a cavern, and to that of immerse \nwith inclosure in a dunsreon. \n\n(2.) The first and second of these passages do not pre- \nsent their mersions under the same aspect. In the second \n(which refers to brutes) it is simply intusposition, which is, \ndirectly, stated. The preposition is used with the dative \nO za> t 3dfci rob ffw/xaraq\'). The implication of influence is \nfound in b zd> /Srifee. \n\nIn the first passage, the position of the soul is made \nsubordinate to the influence exerted over it by the body, \nin consequence of that position. Consequently, we have \nthe dative without the local preposition {^amtfffiivr 4 v zu \n(Tw/xart). Accordant with this is the qualifying ayaui, "very \nmuch." This is perfectly suited to qualify influence, but \nnot position. The body acts upon the soul, in unusual \ndegree, and represses its development, while the soul re- \nacts upon the body, mersing it, interpenetrating it, with \nthose powers which are not allowed to have outward de- \nvelopment. \n\n(3.) The third passage combines both those features. It \ngives the soul intusposition in the body (h za> *&pan pepditrw- \ntUvrj), and, then, describes the excessive and improper in- \nfluence exerted over it, through the body, as death to the \nsoul, while the body lives. \n\n(4.) How the soul is mersed by the body, we may under- \nstand, measurably. By what process the soul becomes \nruersed in the body is not said. Ba\xe2\x80\x94l\'io does not throw \none scintilla of light on this point. Dr. Ilalley says : " The \nPlatonists evidently meant, by their baptism, the becoming \ninclosed in the body, whether, as they sometimes speak, \nthe soul enters the body, or, as at other times, the matter \nconcretes around the soul" (p. 3G2). \n\n(5.) All these baptisms are marked by powerful influ- \nence. Dipping is unknown to them. \n\n\n\n266 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nINTUSPOSITION FOR INFLUENCE. \n\n1. BanriZiov abrbv d-ixrsivsv. . . . JEsop, Ape and Dolph. \n\n2. Kdi fid-TtZsw rd dyjeia. " Mule. \n\n3. 2k xo/iafft izovtou fia-ziZiov, dk&rto. . Alcibiades on Eupolis. \n\n4. Kovrdv ow ei$ to udwp paxrtZouet. . Achilles Tatius, ii, 14. \n\n5. Ba-riZeaOat. zov fftdrjpov xard zou (TW/iazoq. " " iii, 21. \n\n6. Kdi xoiX-qv fiaTZziaaz xdi 7Z?.7]o\'d/j.\xc2\xa3>o<; udazoz. u u iv, 18. \n\n7. "Tizduzoo zoo xXrjQouz Taj* xwtzwv fia-r\xc2\xabjki7). Dion Cassius, L. 18. \n\n8. Tpwdivzov av aipiai twv axa<pajv i^aizri^ovro. " " Ii. 32. \n\n9. Kdi -hpaic xai fn^avijfiafft fiarzrtZovTeg. u " L. 32. \n\n10. Tlaiotisvoi u~o raj\'j biavritov lfiaTZti%ovTO. L. 35. \n\n11. Tobq ds etq tyjv Xijwyv . . . fia-TiZovrcw. Heliodorus, JEth., i, 30. \n\n12. Aid %-ipwv to> Ilepawv gtoXov fia-TiZovra. HeimeriUS, X, 2. \n\n13. Kdi paxTiZew itakiv l- ydXa yuvaixdc. . Hippocrates, ii, 710. \n\n14. \'&6sli> xdi toutov hci xetpaXijv fia-rtZovza. Luciail, Timon, 44. \n\n15. IluXiaz i/ifid-zceov oX/jltj. . . . Nicander, Geo., ii. \n\n16. l QiXi-Koq i\xc2\xb1\xc2\xa3ypno<Touzou diaPa-zi^otievoz. PolyceilUS, iv, 2, 6. \n\n17. "OpQdq k-\\ npu[Lvav \xc2\xa3fidirr\xc2\xa3ov. . . Plutarch, Mar cell., xv. \n\n18. KaXwz iaurov fta-zi*wv eiz ttjv Kw-atda XipiVTjv. " Gryllus, vii. \n\n19. KdX etc zd mp.a Try yj\'tpa $a-Tiaa<z. Plutarch, Par. Gr. &Rom., iii. \n\n20. Kai izoXXa twv <rxa<pa\xc2\xbb IfidnTiZov. . . Polybius, Hist., i, 51, 6. \n\n21. BaxriZofievaj -Xrjpy QaXaTTr t s ZyiyvzTO. . " " viii, 8, 4. \n\n22. Ba-TtZofi\xc2\xa3vY)v oxo vstbq KoXefiiaq. . . " " xvi, 6, 2. \n\n23. Ilept-yJTTeTat pad tux; to udwp izavri to ftaizTtaG&Ti. \n\nStrabo, xii, 5, 4. \n\n24. \'\xc2\xa3v ro> 7r>ia> 8v xdi fiaTtTiaai apetvov fy. . Themistius, Orat., iv. \n\n\n\nBAPTISM FOR INFLUENCE. 267 \n\n\n\nBAPTISM FOR INFLUENCE. \n\n1. And the dolphin, displeased at such a falsehood mersing, \n\nkilled him JEsop. \n\n2. Always, passing through the river, he let himself down \n\nand mersed the panniers. . .. JEsop. \n\n3. But I, mersing you by sea-waves, will destroy with bitterer \n\nbillows Alcibiades. \n\n4. They merse, therefore, a pole into the water. Achil. Tat. \n\n5. They think that the sword is mersed down the body. \n\nAchil Tat. \n\n6. Mersing and filling it, hollowed, of water. " " \n\n7. Would be mersed by the very multitude of the rowers. \n\nDion Ca&sius. \n\n8. Their vessels, being pierced by them, were mersed. \n\nDion Cassius. \n\n9. Mersing them both by stones and engines. " " \n\n10. Struck by the enemy they were mersed. " \' \n\n11. Mersing .... others into the lake. . Heliodorus. \n\n12. Mersing with his hands the fleet of the Persians. \n\nHeimerius. \n\n13. Merse it again into woman\'s milk. . Hippocrates. \n\n14. Thrust such a one upon the head, mersing him. Lucian. \n\n15. Many, merse-in strong brine. . . Nicander. \n\n16. Philip was so long thorough-mersing. . Polyamus. \n\n17. Lifting up, by the prow, erect upon the stern, they mersed \n\nthem Plutarch. \n\n18. Nobly mersing himself into the lake Copais. " \n\n19. Mersing his hand into the blood. . . " \n\n20. They mersed many of the vessels. . Polybius. \n\n21. Mersed, they became full of the sea. . " \n\n22. Mersed by a hostile vessel. ... " \n\n23. The water is inerusted so easily about everything mersed \n\ninto it Strabo. \n\n24. One saved in the voyage whom it were better to merse. \n\nThemistius. \n\n\n\n2G3 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nPARTICULAK CASES EXAMINED. \nDROWNING BAPTISM. \n\nI. " And the dolphin, displeased at such a falsehood, \nmersing, killed him." ^Esop. \n\n3. " But, mersing you by sea-waves, I will destroy you \nby bitterer billows." Alcibiades. \n\n10. " Struck by the enemy, were mersed." \n\nDion Cassius. \n\nII. " Mersing others into the lake." Heliodorus. \n\n14. " Thrust such a one upon the head, mersing him." \n\nLucian. \n\n18. " Nobly mersing himself into the lake Copais." \n\nPlutarch. \n\n24. " One saved in the voyage, whom it were better to \nmerse." Themistius. \n\n(1.) These are cases of drowning. The drowning was \nby mersion, and was the influence designed to be secured \nover the mersed objects. \n\nMersion does not necessarily drown, because something \nmay intervene to arrest this consummation; but where there \nis no such intervention, all living animals are drowned by \nmersion. \n\n(2.) In many of these cases the mersed object was al- \nready in the water, and only the head remaining above; \nyet the putting under the head merely, causing death, is \ncalled mersion (baptism) of the person. \n\nThis is of interest to those who claim to baptize by \nwalking into the water and then dipping the head. Dip- \nping the head would have been quite another affair to the \nape, or to Eupolis, from the baptism which they are re- \nported to have received. \n\n\n\nVARIOUS INFLUENCES. 269 \n\n(3.) Rd-Tio, lingo, dip, are never used to express any case \nof drowning. Their power and nature unfit them for any \nsuch use. \n\n(4.) " The act of baptism," as a uniform modal act, has \nno shadow of existence. The form of the act, through \nwhich the mersion is secured y does not enter into the \nmeaning of the word. Such acts are multitudinous and \nendlessly diverse. \n\n(5.) We see from such usage how readily fia-TcZio might \n(does?) advance, from the idea of mersion, to express di- \nrectly that of drowning. \n\nIn such use as in 24, \xe2\x80\x94 " the pilot does not know whether \nhe saves in the voyage one whom it were better to merse," \n\xe2\x80\x94 we are shut up to the meaning, to drown. \n\n\n\nVARIOUS INFLUENCES. \nSATURATION, INCRUSTATION,. ETC. \n\n2. " Always, passing through the river, he let himself \ndown and mersed the panniers." ^Esop. \n\n4. " They merse a pole into the water prepared with \npitch." xIciiil. Tat. \n\n6. " He lets down his hand into the water, and mcrsing \nand filling it, hollowed, with water, darts the drink to- \nwards his mouth, and hits the mark." Achil. Tat. \n\n13. " Then dipping into oil, rose or Egyptian, apply it \nthrough the da}-, and, as soon as it stings, take it away, \nand merse it, again, into woman\'s milk." Hippocrates. \n\n15. "Merse many in strong brine, after dipping in boil- \ning water." Nicaxder. \n\n16. " Philip was so long thorough-mersing with the \nPancratiast and sprinkling the face, that he did not give \nup, until the soldiers, wearied, scattered." Poly^nus. \n\n\n\n270 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n19. " He gathered the shields of the slain foe, and, \nhaving mersed his hand into the blood, he reared a trophy \nand wrote upon it." Plutarch. \n\n23. " The water is incrusted so easily about everything \nmersed into it, that they draw up crowns of salt, when \nthey let down a rush circle." Strabo. \n\nIt is not necessary to enter minutely into each case. \nSome of the more important features will be noticed. \n\n(1.) Translation. \xe2\x80\x94 Dr. Conant translates " 2." " im- \nmerse;" "4." "plunge;" "6." " dip." Why, this varying \ntranslation^ inexplicable either on the merits of the case \nor on Baptist principles. The word remains the same in \nevery case, while the translation is different in every case. \nBaptists say there is but one meaning to the word through- \nout the entire Greek language; while here, in three pas- \nsages, we have three distinct meanings. \n\nDip, plunge, and immerse differ, essentially, in mean- \ning, and cannot possibly be, true, critical, translations of \nthe same word. \n\nBesides, in two of these passages (2 and 6), the act of \nbaptism is expressly stated. In the first by 0<pUvai, in the \nsecond by xa^xs- neither of which, distinctively, means \nto immerse, to plunge, or to dip ; as neither of them is \ncapable of expounding /?a7mf>, although capable, in par- \nticular cases, to answer its demands. Whenever the trans- \nlator represents the Greek word by a modal act, it is, \nalways, of his own will, and without warrant from ftaizri^u). \n\n(2.) Dip. \xe2\x80\x94 Passages marked 6, 13, 16, 19, afford alto- \ngether the best foundation on which Baptist writers can \nstand to make a plea for their dip. Besides these pas- \nsages, there are but three others (out of more than one \nhundred) which Dr. Conant translates by dip. That any \nBaptist writer, thoroughly committed to dipping, should \nbe unable to introduce the word, on which his system \nhangs, in more than one passage in twenty, is a fact which, \n\n\n\nVARIOUS INFLUENCES. 271 \n\nof itself, throws the gravest doubt about the justness of \nsuch translation in any case. \n\nOf the three passages (not given here, they will be here- \nafter) which are translated by dip, one is stated with the \nacknowledgment, that such translation is embarrassed by \nthe construction; another is accompanied with a doubt as \nto the nature of the transaction; and, the third makes the \ndipping take place in an element, represented by the dative \nwithout a preposition, contrary to current usage. \n\nIn the first of the above cases, dip, clearly, has nothing \nto do with ,3a-7>X<D. You might as well translate nXijedpevoq \nby dip as fta-riaaq. Thej\' both exhibit results, and not acts, \nconsequent on the act expressed by the phrase, rr^ d? yjipa \nits to udwp y.a^y.t. If dip could be introduced, anywhere, it \nmust be as a substitute for xa67,xs. This is the only word ex- \npressive of the act done, and this was the act of baptism \nand of filling. But dip, and "let down," are forms of act \nwhich work themselves out very diversely. They do so \nhere. It is one thing " to let the hand down into the \nwater" for the sake of " mersing and filling it," and, after- \nward, "darting the water thus secured into the mouth;" \nand, it is another thing to dip the hand into water. The \nprocess of letting down, mersing, filling, darting, may be \na very rapid one, and a little complicated, and some may \nthink that dip may, as well as not, be thrown in, some- \nwhere; but the short answer to this is, Plutarch did not \nthink so. When he put ^wzri^oi there, he selected a word \nwhich can never be displaced by fidr:\xe2\x84\xa2, without Greek \nusage uttering an indignant protest, from a hundred \nmouths, against such violation of her sovereignty. \n\nTo introduce dip, as representing /3a-W\xc2\xa3w, is out of all \nquestion. To introduce it as expressive of the act by \nwhich the baptism is effected, and as much disconnected \nfrom it as xadyjxt, is, equally, inadmissible. \n\nThese words are separated by the Greeks, in their vo- \ncabulary, and that separation is maintained, I confidently \nbelieve, throughout all Greek usage. To say that fia-TiZio \nmay be controlled by fidnTw, and that a baptism may be \n\n\n\n272 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nproduced by a bapting, is to say what the language will \nbe searched, in vain, to sustain. \n\nThere is a sort of mersion connected with the modal act \nto dip, full of limitations, which, because of this very quasi \ncharacter, is unfitted to represent the true and unlimited \nmersion of the Greeks. Dipping-mersion belongs to itself; \nhas a mission and history of its own ; and never, in the \nhands of a Greek, intermeddles with the mersion of intus- \nposition and controlling influence. The accidental accord \nbetween a dipping and an intusposition, in rare instances, \nin brevity of duration, will never be made the ground, by \nany thoughtful person, of their confusion or their inter- \nchange. \n\nIt should, also, be observed, that the introduction of an \nact, effecting baptism, into the office of a representative of \nfiaxTiZw, is a liberty which, while Baptists indulge in most \nlicentiously so far as comports with their own views, they \nwill not tolerate in contradiction of their views. \n\nDr. Fuller will not accept the act overflow (which con- \nfessedly effects the baptism), in the case of the sea-coast. \nThen, " my position is," it expresses no form of act at all, \nbut only " immerse." When he admits that pour is an act \ncompetent to effect a baptism in the baptistery, he smiles \nat the witlessness which can confound the act inducing the \nbaptism with the resultant, covered condition, in which, \nonly, the baptism is to be found."\' But when he feels com- \npelled to admit that an object is declared, by a Greek \nwriter, to be baptized, on which water had been poured, with- \nout its lying in a baptistery, and without its being covered, \nthen, baptize means \xe2\x80\x94 what, pour? By no manner of \nmeans. The act must not be put for the resultant condi- \ntion. " Immerse," is it? Why, no. Unfortunately, there \nwas no immersion effected; but the object was made very \nwet I And cannot a child understand that ^arM^m is here \nused, by a fine stroke of rhetoric, to mean " to drench " ? \nPerhaps so ; at least, if he do not, he lacks Dr. Fuller\'s \nfacility in changing " position," and coolness, under em- \nbarrassing circumstances, in finding an accommodating \n\n\n\nVARIOUS INFLUENCES. 273 \n\ninterpretation. Baptist writers should remember that \nwithin the domain of philology there is an equality of \nrights. \n\nCarson translates and comments on the passage marked \n" 13," thus: "Dip it again; the first dipping is expressed \nby pdupaq. This shows that, in the radical signification of \ndipping, these words are perfectly of the same import." \n\nIf such argumentation had been addressed to Dr. Car- \nson, by an opponent, he would have met it with that \npeculiar treatment which his eulogist delicately terms \xe2\x80\x94 \n"Attic salt."\' \n\nThe reasoning assumes that fid-rur and fia-ri\'u) are of \n"perfectly the same import." The assumption is ground- \nless, and the argument based upon it falls. Had it been \nsaid, " dip it in oil and then soak it in milk," what would \nhave been thought of the reasoning which would make \ndip and soak " of perfectly the same import"? Are they \nnot words of contrasted intensity, rather than of agree- \nment? Dip expresses an act introducing its object mo- \nmentarily into "the oil;" soak expresses no form of act, \nbut brings its object under the unlimited influence of " the \nmilk." Such is the distinction between the Greek words. \nTheir use by Hippocrates, instead of proving that both \nhave the same power, proves the reverse. When the \nfeebleness of fid-no has failed to mollify the application \nsufficiently, then the greater power of fta-xl\'m is to be re- \nsorted to. The same conclusion is established by the \ncontrasted use of these words in the Epigram on Eupolis: \n" You have bapted (whether washed, dyed, dipped, or any \nother possible thing) me; but I will baptize (killing) you." \n"Any child can see" that the latter word is used because \nit has a power which whelms the former. \n\nThe same contrast is developed in quotation " 15." To \nmake a pickle the article is first to be "dipped in boiling \nwater," and then to be "baptized in strong brine." The \nsea-coast baptism is not better understood than is this \ndomestic process. The "dipping" is not for the purpose \nof securing the full influence of the boiling water, but the \n\n18 \n\n\n\n274 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nreverse; while the baptism into the brine is to secure its \nfull power. Hippocrates affords no countenance to the \ntheory which would confound these words. \n\nIn " 16," fia-TtZa) is evidently used because a dipping \ncould not express the idea. The point of the contest was \nto vanquish an opponent by depriving him of the power of \nbreathing, whether the water was thrown into the face, \nor whether the head was held under water. The van- \nquished, on yielding, was released by his opponent from \nfarther assault. This is quite a different affair from a \nsimple dipping. Hippocrates speaks of the effect upon \nthe breathing when one has been kept under water some \ntime \xe2\x80\x94 xai avexvew &q \xc2\xa3/. J2sj3a7rria0at \xe2\x80\x94 breathes as one out of a \nstate of mersion. Such a passage ought to be sufficient to \nshow that a bap ting and a baptism, even when they are \nbrought into the nearest possible contact, are two very \ndifferent things. The breathing is not affected by a dip- \nping; it may be to any extent by a baptism. Therefore, \nHippocrates, like a true Greek, rejects /5\xc2\xab-ro\xc2\xbb and employs \n\nThe passage marked " 19" is the last which makes spe- \ncial claim to a dipping, and no passage makes it with more \nplausible, though superficial, pretensions. A Roman sol- \ndier, wounded, is left on the battle-field, who spends his \nfailing strength in gathering the armor of his slain ene- \nmies to erect a trophy. In order that he may write an \nexplanatory and dedicatory inscription, "he merses his \nhand into the blood." It is claimed, that baptize, merse, \nin this statement, means "to dip" \n\nWe ask for the grounds on which such claim rests. Is \nit the current usage of the word? We reply, there is no \nsuch usage as requires or warrants any such meaning. If \nanything in language can be proved, it has been proved \nthat i3a-T(\':<o does not express any definite form of act, and, \ntherefore, does not express the definite act to dip. \n\nIs it said : This particular passage requires this mean- \ning. I answer: Such declaration is founded in error. \nBut if any act of dipping were present, such act could \n\n\n\nVARIOUS INFLUENCES. 275 \n\nnot be made the utterance of this word an}- more than the \nact of overflowing, pouring, sinking, walking, and a score \nof others, present in other cases of baptism. But there is \nno necessity for its presence. The hand may be intro- \nduced into a pool of blood in other ways than by a dipping. \nThe idea of a dipping is facilitated by the mention of \nWriting, as though the statement were the same with dip- \nping a pen in ink to write with it. A closer examination \nof the phraseology will show that such idea is not well \nfounded. It is said, "the hand waa mersed into blood." \nXow this, according to Baptist views (substantially, if not \nabsolutely correct), requires that the entire hand should be \ncovered in blood; but we cannot write with the entire \nhand, and it is simply absurd to suppose that the whole \nhand was covered in blood for the purpose of writing \nwith the finger\'s point. The attempt to ally this phra- \nseology with pen-dipping, therefore, falls to the ground. \nIt is not said that he wrote with the same hand that was \nmersed. Indeed it is quite possible, not to say probable, \nthat the blood was taken up in the mersed hand, and from \nit the blood was taken, by dipping the finger of the other \nhand into it, and, thus, writing the inscription. If the \nstatement were made, " He scooped up blood with his \nhand and wrote with it;" would "scoop" mean to dip? \nIf it were said, "He buried his hand into the blood and \nwrote with it;" would bury mean to dip? It is as inde- \nfensible to convert baptize into dip, as it is to convert \nbury into dip. \n\nIf any Baptist writer thinks that to dip would answer, \nin such case, just as well as to mersc, that is a matter to \nbe settled with Plutarch. I do not pretend to correct or \nto rewrite (in imagined equivalent phrases) this old Greek; \nbut merely to interpret what he has written. And he has \nwritten that the hand was mersed and not dipped, baptized \nand not bapted. I presume it will have to stand so. \n\nAll the passages most favorable to dipping have now \nbeen examined, and I very cheerfully submit, whether the \nresult is such as should overturn that meaning so well \n\n\n\n276 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nestablished " through all Greek literature," and sustained \nby correspondent usage in other languages- \n\n\n\n" 5." "But they who look on think the sword to be \nmersed down the body, but it runs up- into the hollow of \nthe handle.\' 7 Achilles Tatius, \n\n" Plunged " ( Conant), This is another example of a sub- \nstitutionary translation. This introduction of definite acts \nto displace ftaizriZwr is a mere matter of will or imagination \non the part of the translator. It is not in the text. A \ndescription is given of a juggler\'s trick. In the first mem- \nber of the sentence the condition of the sword, supposed \nto be sheathed in the body, is stated without expressing \nthe form 1 of action by which it reaches that condition. \nIn the latter member of the sentence, the mode of state \nment is reversed. The form of action is given, but not \nthe condition resultant from that action. \n\nAn ellipsis,, in, both members, might be supplied thus: \n"They who* look on think the sword to be mersed, running \ndown into the body ; but it is mersed running up into the \nhollow of the handle." Or, you may substitute act and \ncondition in the one case or the other \xe2\x80\x94 " They who look \non think the sword to be run down the body ; but it is \nmersed into the hollow of the handle." But we must not \ngive substitution for translation, whether it be dip, or \nplunge, or run up, or ran down. \n\nThe sword is not influenced by mersion into the body, \nbut the body is. The body is mersed by the sword run \ninto it, just as Semele was mersed by the thunderbolts of \nJove. And in such case no iotusposition exists, real or \nimaginary; but the simple and direct import of mersion, \nas so used,, is that of death-producing influence. The \nintusposition of one thing within another is equally favor- \nable to the communication, as well as the reception of \ninfluence. \n\n\n\nBAPTISM OF SHIPS. 277 \n\n\n\nVESSELS MERSED IN ORDER TO THEIR DESTRUCTION. \n\nu 7 " u And jf anv vessel came near, how could it be \nthat it would not be rnersed by the very multitude of the \noars?" Dion Cassius. \n\n" 8." u If they succeeded, they came off the better; but \nif they failed, their own vessels, being crushed, were \nmersed." Dion Cassius. \n\nu g^" u The others, mersing the attaching ships by \nstones and engines from above." Dion Cassius. \n\nu 12." u I will show you, also, my soldiers, one fighting, \nmost naturally, even in a painting; and another, by his \nhands, mersing the fleet of the Persians." Dion Cassius. \n\n" 17." u Some, by a weight fastened above, pressing \ndown they sank into the deep; others, by iron hands or \nmouths like cranes, drawing up by the prow, upright upon \nthe* stern, they mersed." Plutarch. \n\n" 20." " They made incessant attacks, and mersed many \nof the ships." Polybius. \n\n" 21." " But the most, the prow being let drop from on \nhigh, were mersed, and became full of the sea and con- \nfusion." Polybius. \n\n" 22." " Pierced and mersed by a hostile vessel." \n\nPolybius. \n\nThe features of these baptisms are too obvious to call \nfor exposition. The act effecting the baptism is widely \nvarious ; the farthest possible removed from dip. The \ndative without a preposition, and the genitive, express the \nagency. The duration of the baptism has no limit. The \nbaptism is sought for its destructive influence. The ships \nwere baptized, were left in a state of baptism, and have \ncontinued in it for two thousaud years. \n\n\n\n278 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nINFLUENCE WITH RHETORICAL FIGURE. \n\n1. KaiTot yap paTZTiZ6[\xc2\xb1evoq 6~o rr^ iztOunfas . . . xaQd-sp dk ix xo[iaroq \n\nfoixuxTs, Xiywv Chariton Aphrod., ii, 4. \n\n2. AtovoGioq dk y . . . xarettiqTCTO p.ev 6~d ^scp-wvoq xai rr t v (/\'u%ijv \xc2\xa3j3a~T[\'Cero. \n\nChariton Aphrod., iii, 2. \n\n3. UXolov . . . Idiou %\xc2\xa3cjj.(ovo<; yi/iov, xai fia7zrt\xc2\xa36fievov & yaXijvq. \n\nChariton Aphrod., iii, 4. \n\n4. Obdkv rcbv ^ecria^ofxivcov dtayipovcnv, . . . xav apa it xai to fipayurarov \n\n<r<paXw(7t, Tcau-^Xa)^ fia-rtZovTac. . Dion Cass., xxxviii, 27. \n\n5. Kai abzoq eifit rwv (3sija-THT/j.iva)v v~b rob juLsydXou xbfiaroq, kxsivoo. \n\nLibanius, Epist., xxv. \n\n6. \'AfidKTtffToq d[itj (pzllbz cbq vizkp epxoq, aXpas. Pindar, ii. \n\nINFLUENCE COMPARED TO AN OVERFLOWING WAVE. \n\n1. Then appeared the conflict of reason and passion. For, \n\nalthough mersed (baptized) by the passion, the noble man \nattempted to resist; and rose up, as out of a wave. \n\nChar. Aph. \n\n2. But Dionysius . . . was seized by a storm, and mersed (bap- \n\ntized) as to his soul; but yet he strove to rise above the \npassion, as out of a great wave. . . Char. Aph. \n\n3. I saw a vessel wandering in pleasant weather, full of its \n\nown storm, and mersed (baptized) in a calm. Char. Aph. \n\n4. Carried along in troubled and unsettled affairs, they differ \n\nlittle or nothing from those tempest tossed ; and should \nthey commit any, even the least, mistake they are wholly \nmersed (baptized) Dion Cass. \n\n5. And I am of those mersed (baptized) by that great wave. \n\nLibanius. \n\n6. I am unmersed (un-baptized), like a cork upon a net, of the \n\nbrine . Pindar, \n\n(1.) In no one of these quotations is there the shadow \nof a dipping. \n\n\n\nFIGURE WORN OUT BY CONSTANT USE. 27? \n\n(2.) Id most cases, it is the element which moves to reach \nits object. A sea-wave is irresistible. So is baptism. \n\n(3.) The point of the figure, in no case, is either act or \ncovered condition; but turns wholly on influence, power- \nful influence. To work out a parallelism beyond this, \nwould speedily carry us to the point where would be \npractically exemplified the truth, that " there is but one \nstep from the sublime to the ridiculous." \n\nFIGURE WORN OUT BY CONSTANT USE. \n\nThese passages receive vividness and force from rhe- \ntorical embellishment. For this purpose, appeal is made \nto those physical facts which give origin to the word in its \nliteral use, and which serve to illuminate its tropical use. \n\nThe number of such passages is not large. Words \nwhich pass from a primary to a secondary use, and are in \ndaily employ, lay aside their rhetorical character, and be- \ncome purely prosaic in their import. The secondary mean- \ning becomes as simple, direct, stripped of ornament, and \nunfigurative as in the primary use. A designed and ob- \nvious rhetorical use of words (which have been turned \naside from the expression of physical to denote logical \nrelations), in ordinary conversation or writing, would be \neminently ridiculous. Words which are simply tropical, \nwhich are in everyday use and have secured a well-defined \nmeaning of their own, cannot, with any propriety, be \ntermed figurative. They are as truly literal, in this ac- \nquired secondary use, as in their original, primary, and \nphysical application. Observe the following definitions. \n\n"A figure of language, then, I define to be a distinguished \nmode of speech, which expresses a thought, mostly with \nsome additional idea, and always more to the purpose of a \nwriter or speaker than ordinary language, and which nat- \nurally results from a state of mind suitable to itself." \n\nCarson, Intcrp. of the Scrip. Figures of Speech. \n\n" Simple expression just makes our idea known to \n\n\n\n280 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nothers; but Figurative Language, over and above, bestows \na particular dress upon that idea ; a dress, which makes it \nboth \'to be remarked and adorns it. . . . ISTo language is \nso copious as to have a separate word for every separate \nidea. Men made one word, which they had already ap- \npropriated to a certain idea or object, stand also for some \nother idea or object; between which and the primary one \nthey found, or fancied, some relation. Thus the prepo- \nsition in was invented to express the circumstance of place: \n1 The man was killed in the wood.\' In progress of time, \nwords were wanted to express men\'s being connected with \ncertain conditions of fortune, or certain situations of mind; \nand some resemblance, or analog}\', being fancied . between \nthese and the place of bodies, the word in was employed \nto express men\'s being so circumstanced; as one\'s being \nin health or in sickness, in prosperity or in adversity, in \njoy or in grief, in doubt or in danger, or in safety. Here \nwe see this preposition in plainly assuming a tropical sig- \nnification, or carried off from its original meaning, to signify \nsomething else, which relates to or resembles it. \n\n" Tropes of this kind abound in all languages. We say, \ninflamed by anger, warmed by love, swelled with pride, melted \ninto grief; and these are almost the only significant words \n\nwhich we have for such ideas In every language, \n\ntoo, there are a multitude of words, which, though they \nwere figurative in their first application to certain objects, \nyet, by long use, lose that figurative power wholly, and come to \nbe considered as simple and literal expressions." \n\nDr. Blair, Fig. Lang., xiv. \n\nIn accord with this last statement, Dr. Carson says: \n"Very many of the words of every language have re- \nceived a metaphorical application; but when custom has as \nsigned this as their appropriate meaning, they are not to be con- \nsidered as figures of speech. The grammarian, as Dr. Camp- \nbell observes, will find many metaphorical words which \nwill not be recognized as such by the rhetorician. In \nexplaining the word enlighten, for instance, the grammarian \n\n\n\nFIGURE WORN OUT BY CONSTANT USE. 281 \n\nwill say, that it signifies to instruct, in a metaphorical \nsense, from the resemhlance between the effects of light \nand information. But this term being as much appro- \npriated, now, in the above sense, as the proper term itself, \nthe rhetorician does not consider it as belonging to his \n\ndepartment." Fig. of Speech, p. 278. \n\n" A figure of speech is a certain conformation of speech, \nremoved from the common form, and that which first presents \n\nltselt. Quintlllian. \n\nAll these statements and definitions justify the position, \nthat any word which, in secondary use, has secured a well- \ndefined meaning of daily, long-continued use, and with \ngreat breadth of application, loses, wholly, its figurative \ncharacter, and must be considered simple and literal in its \nexpression. \n\nThis is true, in all respects, of ^ar.ri^a). We find this \nword used through a thousand years, commonly, variedly, \nand independently, as expressing a definite meaning of its \nown, clearly growing out of, yet wholly distinct from, its \noriginal, primary, physical use. \n\nIt is a noticeable fact that this Greek word, according \nto Baptist writers, presents a figurative use as frequently, \nif not more frequently, recurring than the literal use. Is \nnot this extraordinary ? But this fact becomes more no- \nticeable when we turn to fid-rw, and find scarcely a single \ninstance of figurative use in its primary meaning. Can \nany explanation be given of this very diverse usage of \nthese two words, which, we are told, are of entirely the \nsame value? There is an explanation, and one full of \nmeaning. There was a time when Baptist writers gave as \nlong a list of cases of the figurative use of fid-Taj as they \nnow give of $a-z\\*u}. How has that great cloud of figures \nbeen dissipated? Why, by the admission that they had \nmade a mistake in denying to fid-xio a secondary meaning; \nand, thus, had been compelled to resort to figure to ex- \npound difficulties, which, even by all the help of figure, \nCarson says, and says most justly, were "very clumsily \n\n\n\n282 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ngot over." This history is repeating itself. By denying \na secondary use to fia-riZw, a necessity has been induced \nfor resorting to figure as often as to fact; seeking for help \nto get over difficulties, which, after all, are not got over, \nand the failure brings out the clumsiness of the attempt \ninto the boldest relief. When pa-zi^a) is acknowledged to \nhave a secondary use, it will be found to have but little \nmore figure about it than has ftdnra). \n\nTo show the difference between figurative and simple \nstatement, Dr. Blair gives the following : " A good man \nenjoys comfort in the midst of adversity." This, he says, \n" expresses thought in the simplest manner possible." \nBut Baptist writers say no; this is figure. It represents \na good man " in the midst of a tempest \xe2\x80\x94 adverse winds, ad- \nverse waves, adverse skies, dark, glittering with lightnings, \nand shaking with thunderings, in all which he has peace \nand comfort" ! Whither has simplicity of expression fled? \nAgain : " \' It is impossible, by any search we can make, \nto explore the divine nature fully/ is to make a simple \nproposition," says Dr. Blair. Baptist interpretation says, \nnot so: " Search," " explore," demonstrate figure, and rep- \nresent the divine nature as a dark cavern, whose recesses \nare not fully penetrable! \n\nYet again : " The simple style of Scripture, \' He spake \nand it was done; he commanded, and it stood fast.\' " But \nDr. Blair is sadly at fault according to Baptist interpreta- \ntion. This is not the sublimity of simplicity. This is \nhighly wrought figure. The elements of chaos are rep- \nresented as endued with intelligence, hearing and obeying \nthe voice of Omnipotence! \n\nRemember such cases when confronted by figures, con- \njured up by our Baptist friends, out of elements less pro- \npitious than those furnished by either of the above cases. \nAlmost any sentence, of the most purposed simplicity, may \nbe clothed in figurative habiliments until no longer recog- \nnizable by its author. \n\nWe, now, come to consider baptism as a controlling in- \nfluence, changing condition, without any mersion. \n\n\n\nSECONDARY USE. 283 \n\nCONTROLLING INFLUENCE\xe2\x80\x94 GENERAL. \n\nWITHOUT INTUSPOSITION IN FACT OR IN FIGURE. \n\nSECONDARY USE. \n\n1. \'EzzXrjffast TTjV <po%rjv xdi xareftdizrtffe. \n\nAchilles Tatius, Leucippe and Clit., 1. 3. \n\n2. Toffooroj nXifOet fia-Tiatfvat xaxwv. " " " iii 3 10. \n\n3. c dk zoj 6u/xo) fisfia-riGtiivoq xaraobsrat. u " vi, 19. \n\n4. \'EpKtiCTOtHFat ok al rbyat fia-riZouat ypdz. " " vii, 2. \n\n5. Kdi (Tro-e~iov iXaiai fiaicrieatz. . . uEsop, Man and Fox. \n\n6. Kara3a-ziaty<rzral fiot ra try. . . Alciphron, Epist., ii, 3. \n\n7. To rJS t 6oq rod otvoo. . . . xarajjarcriZst. \n\nAlexander Aphrodisias, i, 16. \n\n8. Ouroi /xev yap htiaravrai robro) diafta-ri^scrOai. \n\nDemosthenes, Aristogeiton, 1. 5. \n\n9. Mi; izavrzXajq ftspaTZTiaQcu aAA\' dviyetv. Demetrius Cydon., xiv, 4. \n\n10. Tobz dk iotmrar . . . 6o fia-ziZooot rat? haipopaiz. \n\nDiodorus Siculus, i, 73. \n\n11. Kdi rfj (Toixwopa ^^oKrutfiivov. Ileliodorus JEthiopics, ii, 3. \n\n12. Miffai vbxTtq u->;u) ttjv ndXtv \xc2\xa3fidicTt\xc2\xa3ov. " " iv, 17. \n\n13. Mi) ffu/x^auT\'.^w/xsda raJ robrou 7:d6tt. " " iv, 20. \n\n14. \'Eirstdrj ae rd GUfxjSefirjXora \xc2\xa3(3a7tTi%ev. " " V, 1G. \n\n15. \'Epa-Tias yap oXyv Ixel ttjv Aaiav payfyxsvoq. Heimerius, XV, 3. \n\n16. w a\\> eu6bq iftancrtZero rd aaro. . Libanius, Life. \n\n17. \'H IaXa;xL<; -epi r { v rr^Affiav tpaTzriaaq. " Declamat., XX. \n\n18. \'IVo /xixpar av fiaTTri<r6elr) TrpocrG^xr)^. u Epistle, 310. \n\n19. l O ftaxriZo/xsvov ebptbv rov adXiov Ai/xtova. tl " 962. \n\n20. C H Xb-7] pamfcouea ph ri t v ^uyjp. " Emp. Julian, 148. \n\n21. To 8e 67CoAeXetfxtx(vov SXiyov ov Iftanrfcero. " " " 71. \n\n22. Ba-ri%o;x\xc2\xa3vou rod Tzpdyparoq. . " Oration, xliii. \n\n23. #\xc2\xa3>* ayeis <r%oXi)v, dXXd fia^r^r}. . " Memorial. \n\n24. BaxrtffQzir 7} \\>6(toi<; ij pdyiov rtyvatq. Plotinus, Ennead., 1, 4, 9. \n\n25. "0\xe2\x84\xa2 rob<; raixiaq ipdnrtasv. . Plutarch, Aristoph. and Men. \n\n26. c ///jta? PearctZoftivouq b~o ra>v Tzpaypdrwv. " Socrates. \n\n27. Ihvra/.iG/JAUiv p.upiddcw ocpXr^xaGt fizftaTzriapivov. \n\nPlutarch, Galba, xxi. \n\n28. ToT? <5I uirsppdXXouat fiaxriUrai. . " Education, xiii. \n\n29. BefkttcruFfUvos koXXoj (ppodypan. . Proclus, Chrestom., xvi. \n\n30. BaxriZo/xew re b~o r7 t z 6ob\xc2\xbb7]<;, xdi. . Themistius, Oration, XX. \n\n\n\n284 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nCONTROLLING INFLUENCE\xe2\x80\x94 GENERAL. \n\nWITHOUT MERSION, IN FACT OR IN FIGURE, \n\nSECONDARY USE. \n\n1. Astounds the soul, befalling it unawares, and de-mersed \n\n(de-baptized) it. . . . . . Achilles Tatius. \n\n2. As in a few days to be mersed (baptized) by such a multi- \n\ntude of evils. ..... Achilles Tatius. \n\n3. But he, mersed (baptized) by anger, sinks. " " \n\n4. Misfortunes befalling merse (baptize) us. " " \n\n5. And mersing (baptizing) the tow with oil. JEsop. \n\n6. My life will be de-mersed (de-baptized). . Alciphron. \n\n7. The quantity of wine de-merses (de-baptizes) the physical \n\nand vital power , Alex. Aphrod. \n\n8. For these know how to thorough-merse (thorough-baptize) \n\nwith him Demosthenes. \n\n9. Not wholly mersed (baptized), but bears up. Demetrius-. \n\n10. They do not merse (baptize) the people by taxes. \n\nDiod. Sicul. \n\n11. And mersed (baptized) by the calamity. . Heliodorus. \n\n12. When midnight mersed (baptized) the city with sleep. \n\nHeliodorus. \n\n13. But let us not be co-mersed (co-baptized) by this grief of his. \n\nHeliodorus. \n\n14. Because the events still mersed (baptized) you. " \n\n15. For there fighting he mersed (baptized) all Asia. \n\nHeimerius. \n\n16. By which the city would, immediately, have been mersed \n\n(baptized) Libanius. \n\n17. Salamis, where thou didst merse (baptize) Asia. " \n1.8. Would be mersed (baptized) by a small addition. " \n\n19. Who finding the unhappy Simon mersed (baptized). \n\nLibanius. \n\n20. Grief mersing (baptizing) the soul and darkening the judg- \n\nment Libanius. \n\n21. But the remaining part being small, was mersed (bap- \n\nized). . . Libanius. \n\n22. But now, as you see, the duty being mersed (baptized). \n\nLibanius. \n\n\n\nSECONDARY USE. 285 \n\n23. You have no spare time, but are mersed (baptized). \n\nLibanius. \n\n24. Mersed (baptized) either by diseases or arts of the wizards. \n\nPlotinus. \n\n25. Because he mersed (baptized} the stewards. . Plutarch. \n\n26. That we, mersed (baptized) by the affairs of life. " \n\n27. Mersed (baptized) by debts of fifty millions. " \n\n28. But is mersed (baptized) by those which are excessive \n\nPlutarch. \n\n29. Mersed (baptized) with much wantonness. . Proclus. \n\n30. Both mersed (baptized) by grief, skm-cC, . Themistius. \n\nAlthough a word may have attained to a secondary \nmeaning, it is still possible, with more or less facility, and \nwith more or less apparent fitness, to treat it merely as \ntropical, and refer it back for exposition to>its primary use. \nDr. Carson says that " enlighten" has a secondary mean- \ning. If so, it should be expounded directly by that mean- \ning, and not by resorting, every time it is encountered,, to \nthe roundabout process of a reference to light and its \neffects in revealing the true position, character, worth, \nand relation of things. There is, however, scarcely any \ncase in which this word is used r but that any one, who \nchooses to deny or to disregard its secondary meaning, \nmay deny its acquired rights, and make out a case (in his \nown judgment a triumphant case), by appealing to light, \nand darkness, and mental analogies. Whether such per- \nsons can be better answered than by being let alone, I do \nnot know. \n\nIf in those cases which illustrate the secondary mean- \ning of ^a-rCw, many of them can be robbed of their simple \nstatement and acquired character by dressing them up, \nwith more or less of violence, in the elements of figure, \nand dipping, or plunging, or sinking, or overflowing with \nwater, no one need be surprised. The same can be done \nwith the secondary meaning of almost any w r ord, mutatis \nmutandis. This was done through long years, by Baptists, \nwith the secondary meaning of ,?a-rw, resolving every case \nof dyeing, into a dipping, unmindful of the havoc they \n\n\n\n286 CLASSIC BAPTISM, \n\nmade of rhetoric or common sense. The same blind per- \nsistency in maintaining an erroneous idea is shown in Dr. \nCarson when he sets up the astonishing error, that " ^anzi^ta \nmeans dip and nothing but dip, expressing mode always;" \nand then, to make good his false position, brings in "cata- \nchresis" to dip the shore by the flowing tide, and the land \nof Egypt by the overflowing of the Nile. \n\nThis position of Dr. Carson is too grossly erroneous, \nand its defence too utterly indefensible, for some of his \nadmirers longer to maintain ; but with inconsistency, which \nhas not yet settled down, they admit variety of modal ac- \ntion. They refuse, however, with one voice, still to admit \nany secondary meaning; and with no less violence to the \nlaws of language development than in the case of fidicrw, \nturn every case of the secondary meaning of fiaxTi%u> into a \ndipping, or plunging, or sinking, or overflowing with water. \n\nSECOKDAEY MEANING. \n\nTO EXERCISE A CONTROLLING INFLUENCE CHANGING \nCONDITION. \n\n1. " For what is sudden, all at once and unexpected, \nastounds the soul, falling on it unawares, and de-merses it." \n\nAchilles Tatitts. \n\nWhat is there, on the face of this statement, suggestive \nof water ? Certainly, dipping, and plunging, and sinking, \nare out of all question. The only thing that could be, \nwith any consistency, introduced, here, would be a wave, \nand from that Baptists shrink, because it moves the ele- \nment and not the object. But to take " the soul" out to \nsea, and then conjure up a wave " suddenly," " all at \nonce," "unexpectedly," "to fall upon" it, is a piece of \nextravagance in the way of taste which will commend \nitself to but few. How simply, clearly, and fully is the \ncase met by attaching to the word the secondary meaning, \nto exercise a controlling influence, changing the condition. \n\nThe notion that the soul is put under water, in any way, \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY ANGER. 287 \n\nor intended to be so represented, is simply absurd. It is \ninfluence only which is at issue. \n\n\n\n2. " What crime have we committed, so great, as in a \nfew days, to be mersed by such a multitude of evils?" \n\nAchilles Tatius. \n\nIt would require some ingenuity to work up " a few \ndays," and " a multitude of evils," and a mersion, so as \nto form a billow, or a dipping, out of them. But suppos- \ning some imagination to be sufficiently inventive and con- \nstructive, better save it for a better purpose, and take, \nwhat is on the face of the record, the exercise of a controlling \ninfluence. The agency is expressed by the dative without \na preposition. \n\n\n\n3. "But he, mersed by anger, is subdued; and wish- \ning to escape into his own domain is no longer free, but is \nforced to hate the object loved." Achilles Tatius. \n\n" Speaking of love, contending with and subdued by \nanger, in the same bosom" (Conant). I do not know how \n" love and anger" are to be got into the water, unless it be \nin a " dipping match " after the fashion of Philip and the \nPancratiast. But this will hardly answer; for love, it would \nseem, is kept under the water, unable "to escape." A \nwave, or a sinking ship, will not answer. Until a better \nsolution is found, therefore, we will accept, what every \nletter of the passage proclaims, controlling influence. Anger \nexercises a controlling influence over love; holds it in sub- \njection; will not let it escape. \n\nThe agency is marked by the simple dative. \n\n\n\n4. " Misfortunes befalling us merse us." \n\nAchilles Tatius. \n\nI take this to be a very direct and prosaic statement \n\n\n\n288 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nannouncing the homely truth \xe2\x80\x94 Misfortunes exercise a con- \ntrolling influence over us. The introduction of "falling" \nwaves or wrecked ship going to the bottom is a freak of \nthe imagination not to he laid to the charge of Achilles \nTatius. So Virgil \xe2\x80\x94 " Mersed by these evils." \n\n\n\n5. " And mersing the tow with oil, binding it to her \ntail, he set it on fire." ^Esop. \n\nThis is told of a fox that had been caught, and was thus \npunished for mischief done. " Dipping tow in oil," is Dr. \nConant\'s translation. It is objectionable : \n\n1. Because " dipping" is no translation of panrfcat. \n\n2. The proper form for expressing the element, in which, \nby the dative, requires the preposition. Its use may not, \nnecessarily, indicate the element; but it lays the burden \nof proof, to the contrary, heavily, on the objector. \n\n3. In every clear case, where the inclosing element is \nassociated with the dative, the preposition, by itself or in \ncomposition with the verb, is used. \n\n4. The dative, without the preposition, ordinarily, in- \ndicates instrumentality. It does so in all clear cases (in \ncommon with the genitive) with which we have to do. If \nsuch is not accepted as its import, in any particular, case, \nproof to the contrary must be adduced. \n\n5. No proof can be found in ^ar.rilio. Once this word \nwas deemed sufficient to prove this point. The best Bap- \ntist scholars believe this no longer. Dr. Fuller escapes \nfrom the plunging fire of facts directed against the old \nposition, confessing that any mode, " pouring," will an- \nswer, provided the object is covered. A heavy gun is turned \nagainst this new position, and it, too, is abandoned, with \nthe admission that pour will answer, even if it does not cover, \nprovided it wets very thoroughly, and there is a good deal \n\n\n\nBAPTISM OF VITAL POWER. 289 \n\nof water all around ! Dr. Carson is very indignant at either \nof these admissions. Until Baptist doctors come to some \nagreement among themselves we may he excused from \naccepting the dogma of either party. \n\n6. It is beyond all rational controversy that this tow \ncould be baptized as properly\' by pouring oil upon it as \nin any other way. Vessels in which oil is kept are best \nadapted for pouring. It is improbable that a mass of \ntow would be mersed in a large vessel of oil. We claim \nthat tow brought, thoroughly, under the influence of oil, \nin any way, is baptized, saturated, mersed, of changed \ncondition. \n\n7. The translation should be, mersing the tow with oil ; \nthe dative being without the preposition. \n\n\n\n6. " If I purpose to see all the rivers, my life will be \ndemerseel, not seeing Glycera." Alciphron. \n\nAn invitation to visit Egypt, and see " the beautiful \nNile," was declined, on the ground that equal reason \nmight be urged for visiting the Euphrates, the Danube, \nthe Tigris, &c, to do which would consume his life and \ndeprive of fellowship with Glycera. Is there anything in \nthis form of expression, or the nature of the sentiment, \nwhich shadows forth water and a dipping ? Is there not \nthe clearest statement, that to enter upon the course indi- \ncated would exercise a controlling influence over his life? \n\n\n\n7. "Why do many, made drunk with wine, die? Be- \ncause the quantity of the wine de-merses the physical and \nthe vital power and warmth." Alexander Aphrodisias. \n\nWine drank neither dips, plunges, nor sinks ; not even \nby " catachresis." iSTor does it, in this case, " cover" by \n\n\n\n290 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\npouring clown the throat; for it is a physical impossibility \nthus to cover over " the physical and vital power and \nwarmth." For another reason. If wine, as a fluid, effects \nthis mischief, then as much water would do the same. But \nthis is not true. Therefore, it is a case of controlling in- \nfluence; not exerted by wine as a fluid, but by its peculiar, \ninfluential qualities as a drink. Life is mersed by it on \nthe same principle that the life of Semele was " mersed" \nby the thunderbolts of Jove. Each has its peculiar power \nto influence controllingly, changing condition. \n\n\n\n8. "Not the speakers, for these know how to thor- \nough-merse with him, but private citizens and the inex- \nperienced." Demosthenes. \n\n" Showing what kind of persons Aristogeiton was ac- \ncustomed to harass by false accusation and extortion. In \nthis case the compound word is used metaphorically, and \nthe sense is : For these know how to match him in foul \nlanguage \xe2\x80\x94 in the game of sousing one another." (Conant.) \nSupposing this use to be derived from the contest in \n" thorough-mersing," it shows the very varied and facile \napplication of the word. The orator employs the word to \nshow the mastery which practised speakers have over \ntheir opponents; being able to confound them by their \nskill and power in the use of language, and thus bring \nthem under their controlling influence. \n\n\n\n9. " For the soul has control over the body, and enter- \ning into it is not wholly mersed by it, but rises above it; and \nthe body, apart from- her, can do nothing." Demetrius. \n\n"We are, certainly, exempt from the intrusion of water \nhere. And we are, certainly, brought face to face with \ncontrolling influence. Will any one say, the soul "enter- \ning into the body" \xe2\x80\x94 doaav efe auzd \xe2\x80\x94 is not "wholly covered \nby the body" ? This would be a very nondescript sort of \n\n\n\nBAPTISM OF THE SOUL. 291 \n\nfigure. For the soul "to enter the body, yet not be \nwholly" under the controlling influence "of the body," is a \nvery intelligible statement; very conformable with facts, \nand very much like what the writer declares. The soul \nu controls the body," and is not controlled by it. \n\n\n\n10. " On account of the abundant revenue from these \nsources, they do not merse the people with taxes." \n\nDlODORUS SlCULUS. \n\nThe following exposition is given by Dr. Carson: "In \nthis figure, the rulers are supposed to immerse the people \nthrough the instrumentality of oppressive taxes. Mr. \nEwing ver} T well translates, \' on account of the abundant \nsupply from these sources, they do not oppress the com- \nmon people with taxes.\' The literal translation is: \'They \ndo not immerse the common people with taxes.\' The \npeople, in the case of oppressive taxation, are not supposed \nin such figures either to have the taxes poured upon them, \nnor themselves to be immersed in the taxes; but to sink by \nbeing weighed down with taxes. The taxes are not the \nelement in which they sink, but are the instrumental bap- \ntizers. They cause the people to sink by their weight \nThis suits the words; this suits the figure; this suits the \nsense ; this suits every example which refers to debt; this \nsuits the analogy of all other languages. We say, our- \nselves, dipped in debt, drowned in debt, sunk by debt, or \nsunk in debt. To sink in debt figures the debt as that \nin which we sink. It is a deep water in which we sink. \nTo sink by debt figures the debt as a load on our shoulders, \nwhile we are in deep water. In this view, it is not the \ndrowning element, but the baptizer or drowner. To be \ndipped in debt, supposes that we owe something consider- \nable in proportion to our means. But we may be dipped \nwithout being drowned. The last cannot be adequately \nrepresented by baptize except when circumstances render \nthe meaning definite." \n\n\n\n292 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nThis exposition would answer better as the basis for a \ncaricature in the "London Punch," than as a simple in- \nterpretation of the historian. Is it to be imagined, for a \nmoment, that Diodorus means, by a word, to touch some \nsecret spring in the imagination of his readers, whose \n\' movement would expose to their view the land of the Mle \nflooded, through all its borders, while its inhabitants were \nseen, with packs on their backs, struggling and sinking \nin deep waters ? Is this the import of the phrase, " merged \nby taxes"? Dr. Carson commits a marvellous error in the \ntransmutation of mersion by taxes into such a water scene. \nWhat have "taxes" to do with water, shallow or deep? \nDo taxes dip people, or sink people, or drown people, in \nwater? "But mersion has something to do with water." \nMersion had something to do with water, once;. but when \nit entered into fellowship with " taxes" it came to live on \ndry land, and if it did not wholly lay aside the character \nof a baptizer, it certainly did bid farewell to all baptisms \ninto water. If any one, through curiosity or any other \nmotive, has a fancy for tracing back the relations of this \nword, after passing through all watery depths, they can \nbring back nothing germane to the case in hand but the \nsimple idea of ruin, Dipping, plunging, sinking of the \nEgyptians in water is pure impertinence. The clippings \nplunging, or sinking of anything else is equally so, in all \nrespects, save only as to the one point of destructive influence. \nHence proceeds, for those who need it, a flash of light \nwhich illumines the passage. But the passage needs no \nsuch help. It is self-luminous. It proclaims with its own \ntongue the ruinous character of excessive taxation. This \nmerses not into water, but into a stinted wardrobe, into a \npinched table, into the sale of a cow, a horse, a plough, a farm ; \ninto unrequited toil and bitter penury ! If the historian must \nbe made to write in figures, this is his figure, \xe2\x80\x94 heavy taxes \nmerse the people into financial ruin. But he uses no figure at \nall. He employs a word which was used every day to de- \nvelop, in the fullest measure, the influence of its adjunct. \n\nGreek literature shows this secondary use and meaning \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY TAXES. 293 \n\nto be a3 true, as broad, and as self-sustaining as is the \nprimary use and meaning. So self-evidencing is this use, \nthat if every primary use were blotted out from the Greek \nlanguage, and the remembrance of its existence oblitera- \nted from the minds of men, still this secondary use would \nlive unharmed, "having life within itself," to vindicate its \nunborrowed rights and claim a controlling influence over \nits objects. Can this be denied? Can this be admitted, \nand a secondary sense be denied? The dative is without \na preposition. Carson rejects the translation in taxes and \nadopts by taxes without any reason given, and without \nany capable of being given harmoniously with his prin- \nciples or practice. If the form 6u fia-ri^ooGi xai- ki<T(p< paU \ndoes not, of itself, determine that " the taxes " occupy the \nposition of agency, whence the influence proceeds which \neffects this baptism, then, I know of nothing else which \ncan confer such character upon it. According to Carson\'s \nown showing, there is nothing to prevent " taxes "from \noccupying the position of element in baptism. He says, \nsink in debt and sink by debt is equally proper; and as \nhe, here, "surreptitiously" introduces sink for baptize, of \ncourse, it is equally proper to say baptize in taxes or bap- \ntize by taxes. But it is by no means a matter of indiffer- \nence whether we assign to the dative, thus used, the office \nof agency or of element; nor is it reasonable to believe \nthat we are left, at will, to select the one or the other; yet \nthis must be so, unless the form of the phrase is taken as \nan authoritative guide. \n\nThe translation of Dr. Carson is right, and the reason \nis, the grammatical form, and the elements of thought \nwhich enter into it, require it. The mersion is, purely, \none of influence, and the source whence that influence \nproceeds,* and which gives character to the mersion, is \nstated. This completes the thought \xe2\x80\x94 mersion by taxes \xe2\x80\x94 \nsuch controlling influence as excessive taxation universally \nbegets, changing the condition of those subject to it. \n\n\n\n294 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n11. " Cnemon, perceiving that he was deeply grieved \nand mersed by the calamity, and fearing lest he may do \nhimself some injury, removes the sword privately." \n\nHeliodorus. \n\nIs there anything, here, suggestive of a cold bath ? Is \nthere not the clearest statement of controlling influence? \nDoes not the introduction of figure, "water floods, or \ninundations, swollen torrents, or shipwrecks," dislocate \neverything? "Whelmed by the calamity" (Conant). Ca- \nlamity is the agency, source of influence, and is repre- \nsented by the simple dative. \n\n\n\n12. " When midnight had mersed the city by sleep." \n\nHeliodorus. \n\nWhen midnight had plunged the city in sleep ( Conani). \nAn object may be physically baptized by plunging; but to \nplunge is not the meaning of the word. Why " plunge" \nshould be chosen to introduce to a quiet night\'s rest is \nhard to tell. I do not remember ever before to have seen \nplunge and sleep associated together. The ideas of force \nand violence are out of place. Sometimes it is said \xe2\x80\x94 " he \ntook an opiate and fell into a sweet sleep." But in such \ncase to suggest that figure is, hsre, used, and the sleeper \nis represented as standing on the edge of a precipice, or \nthe bank of a river, and "falling" thence into a running \nstream, is too irrational even to be laughed at. " To fall," \nthus used, expresses, merely and directly, the idea of pass- \ning quickly from a state of wakefulness into a state of \nslumber. "To plunge into sleep," is phraseology difficult \nto vindicate under any circumstances, and cannot be vin- \ndicated, here, either as the translation of the Greek word, \nor as the work of midnight. The probable use of this \nword was to secure the introduction of m. "Whelm" is \nthe, almost, invariable translation of the many passages \nwhich Dr. Conant calls figurative. But "whelmed in" \nwould not answer well ; neither would a dipping in sleep \n\n\n\nMIDNIGHT BAPTISM. 295 \n\nanswer; therefore, to save in, the rude term "plunge" is \nadopted. But according to Baptist interpretation, " plunge \nin" brings up a water scene. Sleep is figured as a flood \nlarge enough for a city to be plunged into it. Did any \npoet or orator ever venture to state, in words, any such \nfigure? Rhyme and rhetoric carry license, oftentimes, \ninto licentiousness; but I do not remember that either \nhas ever taken the liberty of putting a city to sleep, figur- \natively, by plunging it into water! The communication \nof the gentle influence of sleep, when represented by \nfigure, proceeds on a wholly different basis. \n\nIt has been already shown that " Invadunt urbem vino \nsomnoque sepultam" \xe2\x80\x94 " Expletus dapibus vinoque sepul- \ntus" \xe2\x80\x94 "Rutuli somno vinoque soluti" \xe2\x80\x94 as well as "Sleeps \nin Port" \xe2\x80\x94 have nothing to do with graveyards, dissolution \nof the body in sleep and wine as a menstruum, or with \nthe inside of a wine-cask as a bedchamber; but that the \ninfluence of wine and sleep, only, are indicated. \n\nI may now add that the same is true of other passages \nwhere a narrow interpretation would much more plausibly \nfind water : \n\n" Unfit he was for any worldly thing, \nAnd eke unable once to stirre or go; \nNot meet to be of eounsel to a king, \n\nWhose mind in meate and drinke was drovmed so : \nSuch one was Gluttony.\' T Faerie Queene, p. 3G. \n\n" There did the warlike maid herself repose, \nUnder the wings of Isis all that night ; \nAnd with sweet rest her heavy eyes did close, \n\nAfter that long daies toile and wearie plight; \nWhere whilst her earthly parts with soft delight \nOf senseless sleepe did deeply drowned lie." \n\nFaerie Queene, p. 505. \n\nTo represent any one as plunged amid " meats and \ndrinks" for the sake of "drowning" them, is a kind of \nfigure distinguished neither by elegance nor congruity. \nIt is but little better, in the same sentence, to make one \n" sleep all night under the wings of Isis," and, also, lie \n" drowned" at the bottom of a pool. \n\n\n\n296 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nEdmund Spenser is not responsible for these beauties \nof poesy. He uses " drown," simply, to give strong de- \nvelopment to the influence of its adjuncts, without any \nregard to cold water, just as Virgil uses " buried," for the \nsame purpose, without any design of introducing his \nreaders to a graveyard. \n\n. That sleep is not a vast lake, or sea, in which cities may \nbe plunged, is farther shown by its distinct representation \nas an agency, and by the methods of its procurement. \n\nOvid says : " Before the doors of the dwelling of the \nGod Somnus rich poppies grow, and countless herbs, from \nthe juice of which humid night gathers soporifics, and \nsprinkles (spargil) them over the darkened earth." \n\nThere is no plunging or water-pool here. The sprink- \nling of poppy-juice upon the eyelid is sufficient to " merse \na city with sleep," or to drown the darkened earth -in deep \nrepose. Elsewhere he speaks of sleep as agent in relaxing \nthe bodies of men, homines solverat alia quies. He, also, \nrepresents it as an .agent, bringing Iris, standing in the \nchamber of Somnus, under its power : " She could no \nlonger endure the power of drowsiness; and as she felt \nsleep to glide into her limbs {lain in artus), she fled." \nVirgil says: " Venus diffuses (irrigat) gentle sleep through \nthe limbs of Ascanius." \n\nI know of no representation of sleep which differs, essen- \ntially, from these in any accredited writer. " To plunge \na city in sleep " does essentially differ, and, I must think, is \nboth an error of translation and of adaptation to the fitness \nof things. Spenser is quite in harmony with these classical \nwriters in making sleep a gentle agency : \n\n" And then by it his wearie limbes display, \nWhiles creeping slomber made him to forget \nHis former payne, and wypt away his toilsome sweat." \n\nWill any one put his finger on " creeping," and cry out, \nFigure! Shall we be treated to the picture of an animal \nstealthily approaching its prey with a collar around its \nneck labelled\xe2\x80\x94 "Sleep"? \n\n\n\nSLEEP-BAPTISM. 297 \n\nSpenser thought that there was another and a better \nmethod for putting sleep into full possession of its object. \nHe thus describes it : \n\n"By this she had him lulled fast asleepe, \n\nThat of no worldly thing lie care did take; \nThen she, with liquors strong his eies did steepe, \nThat nothing should him hastily awake." \n\nI have dwelt upon this passage, and endeavored to illus- \ntrate its true character; because it is all-important to show \nthat this and kindred passages are exhausted, under a just \ninterpretation, by showing the agency, clothed by its asso- \nciate fiaicriZtDy with a plenary influence over its object; and \nthat no element for dipping, or plunging, or sinking, in \nfact or in figure, belongs to the exposition. From the \noriginal, physical use the idea of controlling influence has \nbeen eliminated ; and we have no need any longer to recur, \nin word or in thought, to such physical use. \n\nAnd now, in view of the fact that Heliodorus declares \n"the city baptized by sleep" \xe2\x80\x94 without giving any mode \nof baptism; and in view of the fact that Ovid declares the \nmode by which " night brings all in this darkened earth \ninto a somnolent condition" is by "sprinkling;" it follows, \nincontrovertibly, that a mode of effecting sleep-baptism \nis by sprinkling. \n\nLet no Baptist friend be solicitous lest I should forget \nthe difference, or should surreptitiously confound, sleep- \nbaptism and water baptism. I will ever try to distinguish \nbetween things that differ, and am, for the present, quite \nsatisfied with the point reached \xe2\x80\x94 the unchallengable posi- \ntion \xe2\x80\x94 Sleep-baptism may be by sprinkling. \n\nDr. C. puts the passage under consideration with others, \nunder the explanatory heading \xe2\x80\x94 " To plunge, to immerse, \n\nto whelm (as in ingulfing floods) in sleep," etc. \n\nDr. Conant does not tell us the point of resemblance be- \ntween a city asleep at midnight and " a man plunged in \ningulfing floods." Until he does, I rather think that the \nworld must remain in ignorance on the point. Whatever \n\n\n\n298 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nexposition ne may give, it is quite probable that some \nsecond Carson will enumerate it as amon^ those cases \nwhich were " clumsily got over by the help of figure.\'\'* \n\nHear a criticism of Carson of Tubbermore : " \' Steep me \nin poverty to the very lips." It is here supposed that \nthere is a likeness between being in great poverty, and \nbeing steeped in water. We cannot say that the likeness \nis faint, for there is no likeness at all." \xe2\x80\x94 [Figures of Speech, \np. 286.) But if no resemblance in such a case, how much \nless in one where gentle sleep confronts plunging into floods. \n\n\n\n13. " But let us not be co-mersed by this grief of his, \nnor be, un observantly, carried away by his tears, as by \ntorrents." Heliodorus. \n\nIf any one should think that the mention of "torrents." \nin close connection with mersion, is indicative of an allusion \nto primary use, I would care but little to debate the matter. \nSuch rare references would rather strengthen the general \nposition, that where there is nothing of the kind men- \ntioned, no allusion is intended. But, in the present case, \n"torrents" are not connected with the mersion, but with \nthe "tears." And in determining the relation between \ntorrents, we must guard against the extravagance of sup- \nposing tears to be converted into torrents. Such is not \nthe point. The resemblance is between the moral effect \nof tears and the physical effect of torrents. The influence \nof tears changes our feelings and purposes, as the influence \nof torrents changes the position of objects encountered. \nThe man who is influenced by tears is not supposed to be \ncarried away by torrents; but is like, so far as change of \nmoral position is concerned, to one who is carried away \nby torrents, so far as physical position is concerned. \n\nThe mersion is by grief, and is indicative of profound \ninfluence. \n\nIn this case, and in all similar cases, mersion, or baptism, \nrepresents a complete change of condition. \n\n\n\nBAPTISM OF ASIA. 299 \n\n14. " The relation of your wanderings, often post- \nponed, as you know, because the casualties still mersed \nyou, you could not keep for a better opportunity than the \npresent. Heliodorus. \n\nCould any statement be farther removed from a dipping \nor plunging into water? There cannot be a reference to \nan act, for the statement turns on a continuous condition. \nHow devoid of all reason would be the idea of a long-con- \ntinued mersion in water of a living man ! That remark- \nable events and casualties of life should exercise, for a \nlong time, a controlling influence over our feelings, so that \nwe should feel a reluctance to speak of them, is a matter \nof daily experience. This, and not plunging or lying \ndrowned in water, is the statement made by Heliodorus. \n\n\n\n15. "Great at Salamis; for there, fighting, he mersed \nall Asia." Heimerius. \n\n17. " Salamis was the pinnacle of exploits ; where thou \ndidst merse Asia." Libanius. \n\nHowever bravely the attempt may be made to put " all \nAsia" into the waters of the gulf Argolis, the attempt will \nissue in both a physical and rhetorical failure. Why \nshould "all Asia" be dipped, or plunged, or sunk into the \ngulf? All the fleet was not. The mersion of Asia did \nnot turn on the mersion of the ships. If not one vessel \nbad been sunk, but every vessel captured and brought \ninto port, Asia would have been, equally, mersed. Had \nthe battle been fought on the land, in a sandy desert, with \nlike issue, Asia would, still, have been mersed. It was \nthe triumphant victory, which gave Greece a power com- \npetent to sway a controlling influence over, to merse, Asia. \nGale would dip a lake into the blood of a frog, because \nhe would not acknowledge a secondary meaning to pd-xTm. \nCarson exclaims: "Monstrous perversion of taste!" And \n\n\n\n300 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nall from a denial of the truth, \xe2\x80\x94 fMucrm has a secondary \nmeaning. Its admission obliterates all idea of a dipping, \nand establishes an effect in the stead of an act. \n\nWhen will a second Carson arise, and, with imperial \nutterance, constrain his friends to confess paitri\'to, too, has \na secondary meaning, putting to flight shadowy figures \nand "monstrous perversions of taste"? \n\nAsia was mersed by " fighting," not by dipping. Con- \ntrolling influence changed her condition. \n\n\n\n16. " He exhorts the class of bread-makers to be more \njust, but he did not think it proper to use compulsion, \nfearing the running away of the mass; by which the city \nwould, immediately, be mersed, just as a ship, the sailors \nhaving deserted it." Libanitjs. \n\n\n\ni & \n\n\n\nTwo mersions are, here, distinctly stated. The one of \na city, and the other of a ship. The one by the desertion \nof food-makers, the other by the desertion of the navi- \ngators. Mersion in the one case is said to be just as cer- \ntain as in the other. That the one mersion is like the \nother is a folly not stated. That the one mersion is lik- \nened to the other, as a dipping, or plunging, or sinking in \nwater, is a crude conceit nowhere intimated. There is a \npoint in which the two widely different mersions are like ; \nnot a likeness dimly seen through the haze of figure, but \nan absolute likeness. The likeness is that of certain ruin. \nA city abandoned by its food-producers will be ruined by \ntumult and famine. A ship abandoned by its navigators \nwill be ruined by winds and waves. The nature of the \nbaptism in the one case and in the other, is indicated by \nits proximate cause. \n\nIt would be difficult to find a clearer proof passage of \n\nthe existence of the secondary meaning contended for. \n\nAgreements and differences are best seen when the Ob- \nis \n\njects involved can be placed side by side. This is done \nhere. And we find that the baptism of an abandoned city, \n\n\n\nBAPTISM OF A CITY. 301 \n\nand the baptism of an abandoned ship, have nothing in \ncommon, save the being subject to controlling influences issuing \nin destruction. This is the point of likeness stated by Li- \nbanins. It is the true, only, and all-sufficient point of con- \ntact between the primary and secondary meaning. \n\nAll attempts to trace resemblances between dippings, \nplungings, and sinkings in water, is as unprofitable as \nploughing the sand. Bread-makers would baptize the city. \n\n\n\n18. "He who hardly bears the things which he is, al- \nready, bearing, would be mersed by a small addition." \n\nLlBANIUS. \n\n"Where is the person, here, spoken of? On the land or \nin the water? What are the things which he is already \nbearing? Blocks of granite, or masses of pig-iron? If \nhe is travelling, or swimming in the water, and bearing a \nhundred weight, a small addition may put him under the \nwater; but if he is on the land, and his burden consists \nof intellectual or moral responsibilities and solicitudes, \nthen, a very large addition will not transport him to a flood, \nor merse him under its surface; however much it might \nexercise a controlling influence over him. \n\nXo comparison is instituted with an overburdened ves- \nsel, but the statement has the most absolute limitation to \nthe man and his circumstances. It is their influence, an \ninfluence to be determined by their nature, which is \nspoken of. A "small addition " may change his condition. \n\n\n\n19. " This is he who having found the miserable Cimon \nmersed and forsaken did not overlook him." Libanius. \n\nDoes the writer intend to picture Cimon as found lying \nunder the water, drowned and forsaken ? \n\nA man who is in distress, beyond what courage and \nhope can contend with, is a mersed man; and would be so \nif there were not a drop of water on our planet. \n\n\n\n302 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n20. " Grief for him mersing the soul and darkening the \nunderstanding, brings a certain mistiness over the eyes." \n\nLlBANIUS. \n\nThis is a passage taken from a funeral discourse on Lie \nEmperor Julian. "Whelms the soul" (Conant). Against \nthis translation we must enter our protest. Not on the \nground of merit, but as a Baptist translation. We call \nattention to this translation, because, as used, it is full of \nmeaning and an efficient argument for our cause. Dr. \nConant gives sixty-four quotations, under the head of \n"Tropical or Figurative Sense." Fifty-one of these he \ntranslates by " whelm." Such a translation is contrary \nto Baptist views, long advocated, and is repudiated by \nDr. Carson. This fact becomes the more remarkable, \nwhen it is added, that of eighty-six passages, under the \ncaption, " Literal, Physical Sense," there is but a solitary \ncase which receives this translation. \n\nDr. Conant\'s work has been too laboriously, and too \nartistically constructed, to permit us to suppose that no \nstrong reason underlies these facts. Let me suggest : \n1. Whelm does not answer Baptist views, because they \nhave insisted upon an act, a definite act, an act which \nmoves the object into the water. But whelm has not \nthese characteristics. It expresses a condition ; the result \nof the element coming over its object with uncontrollable \npower. Whelm is, therefore, eschewed by Baptists as rep- \nresenting the " Literal, Physical Sense," and im-merse, \nim-merge, sub-merge, dip, plunge, are pressed into the \nservice. 2. These terms, which are made to express, as \nfar as possible, forms of action, will not answer for the \ntropical or secondary use; because it exhibits merely con- \ntrolling influence, eliminated from the primary, physical \nuse, and resort is had to whelm, which does, in like man- \nner, carry into tropical or secondary use the same idea of \ncontrolling influence. Dr. Conant, therefore, in rejecting \nim-merse, im-merge, sub-merge, plunge, dip, in the tropi- \ncal use (these words not carrying with them the idea of \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY GRIEF. 303 \n\ncontrolling influence), and by adopting the before dis- \ncarded term, ichelm (which does carry with it this idea), \nfurnishes the most conclusive testimony to the point, that \nfta-r^u, when turned from its primary use, does carry with \nit, and directly express, the secondary meaning of control- \nling influence. Thus, "grief" is said, in the passage be- \nfore us, to exercise "a controlling influence over the soul, \ndarkening the understanding," &c. A physical, whelmed \ncondition is induced by other forms of movement than \nflowing. A falling avalanche whelms. "Whatever comes \nupon and rises over constitutes a whelming. !N~or is it \nmatter in masses, or fluids in streams, only , that whelms. \nFlakes of snow, particles of sand, drops of water, may \nwhelm. The traveller may be whelmed by snow-flakes; \nthe caravan may be whelmed by sand particles; and the \nglobe may be whelmed by rain-drops. \n\nWhelm in secondary use rejects, 1. All forms of action; \n2. All varieties of physical material ; 3. All physical cover- \ning; and adopts, and carries with it into its new domain, \ncontrolling influence, which is, always, present in every \ncase of physical whelming. \n\nIt is because of this truth that Dr. Conant abandons his \ntranslations in the physical use, and adopts another in \nwhat he terms figurative use. In so far forth as control- \nling influence is concerned, baptize and whelm do, very \ncompletely, measure each other. The nature of this in- \nfluence is determined by its adjunct terms. It may be of \njoy or sorrow, virtue or vice, life or death. "Whatever can \ninfluence its object controllingly \xe2\x80\x94 be it great or small, \nmuch or little; be it applied to the lips as wine, to the \neyes as poppy-juice, to the ears in perplexing questions, \nto the heart through joy or grief \xe2\x80\x94 whelms, baptizes, \nmerses, changes, completely, the condition. \n\n\n\n21. " But the remainder (of the city councils) being \nsmall, was mersed." \xc2\xbb Libaxius. \n\nThis refers to the opposite courses, selfish and unselfish, \n\n\n\n304 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\npursued by the members of the councils in the cities, and \nthe issue to the honest few. They were mersed; and \nfidelity to their trust ended in beggary. \n\nThe absolute use of the word, joins, with all other con- \nsiderations, to demand a direct and essential value to be \ngiven to it. The influence brought to bear upon them \nwas beyond their control. \n\n\n\n22. " But now, as you see, the matter (of instruction, \nLibanius was a teacher) being mersed, and all the winds \nput in motion against it." Libanius. \n\nAs the context speaks of "sailing," &c, we may sup- \npose, from the rhetorical embellishment, that the origin \nof the word was present to the writer\'s mind. There is, \nhowever, a strong and exclusive forth-putting of the idea \nof controlling influence. \n\n\n\n23. " But you do not announce this want of leisure to \nthose giving splendid feasts; but if asked your decision \nconcerning any more important matters, you have no \nleisure, but are mersed." Libanius. \n\nSuch free and absolute use of the word is highly indica- \ntive of its being not merely a satellite in the world of \nletters, shining only with borrowed light, but a fixed star, \nhaving light of its own. If w\xc2\xa3 are unable to affix a specific \ncharacter to the general import of the word, as thus abso- \nlutely used (and some question might arise here), still, we \nknow, beyond controversy, that some controlling influence \nis referred to. \n\n\n\n24. " But when he does not so continue, being mersed \nby diseases and by arts of wizards." Plotinus. \n\n"Whelmed either with diseases or with arts of ma- \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY WIZARD ARTS. 305 \n\ngians" (Conant). Why not in diseases and in magical arts \nas well as " in sleep"? The former is as suitable to repre- \nsent the clement of mersion as the latter. But neither of \nthem should do so. It is the agency, the source of in- \nfluence, only, that is spoken of. And what appearance \nof water is there in this statement ? How shall it he* intro- \nduced? What part belongs to "diseases and wizard arts" \nin the picture? Does the unhappy man lie down on the \nsea-shore while diseases and incantations, converted into \nbillows, roll over him? Or, is the sufferer to be metamor- \nphosed into a ship, and the scene a naval battle, where he, \nas a ship, goes down under the hostile assaults of disease \nand magic, in the shape of "stones and machines"? The \npicture must be filled up in some such way, if we have a \npicture at all. \n\nBut Dr. Carson says, that "whelming" is no baptism in \nfact, but only I gratia, because whelming is not dipping. \nIf Dr. Carson be right, then Dr. Conant bases a figure on \na figure, which is a very baseless basis. But if Dr. Carson \nbe wrong, then his " millenary" honors become imperilled \namong his friends, while they deny his "complete demon- \nstration" that " ftaTzri^aj means nothing but dip." \n\nI will not say that this very remarkable language of \nPlotinus cannot, by ingenuity or violence, be made to take \nthe aspect of figure; for, with "ample verge and room," \nthis can be done to almost any language. When Marcus \nAntoninus speaks of a man dtxatoauvr) fiefkipfiivov, Dr. Gale says \nhe speaks in figure, and fidnra) has its primary meaning. \nThe man is " dipped in justice." Dr. Carson protests \nagainst this, declaring that /Sarrrw has here a secondary \nmeaning, and is used literally, meaning to dye with. Again, \nDr. Carson says: the sea-coast is baptized, not literally, \nbut only by the help of figure; while Prof. Ripley says, \nthere is no figure about it, but fiamgat means to overflow. \n\nKow, until these most estimable Doctors can airree as \nto what is primary and secondary use, what is literality \nand figure, in the case of these words, they should not \npress their opponents too hardly with the dogmatic asser- \n\n20 \n\n\n\n306 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ntion, that the case before us is figure, and that " diseases \nand wizard arts " represent ocean billows. \n\n\n\n25. "He is praised because he mersed the stewards; \nbeing not stewards but sharks." Plutarch. \n\nI do not know the nature of this baptism. I cannot \nsay that water had not something to do with it, or every- \nthing, because I have no certain knowledge. The passage, \nas it stands (I am indebted for it to Dr. Conant), does not \nthrow a ray of light upon the nature of the baptism. It \nis impossible to tell whether it is primary or secondary, \nliteral or figurative. The stewards might have been \ndrowned, might have been put to sleep by an opiate, might \nhave been made drunk, might have been confounded by an \nexpose of their administration, or a dozen other things, \nand the language would apply equally well in either case. \nThey would all, alike, be mersions, baptisms. How de- \nlusive is the position, \xe2\x80\x94 " One meaning, clear, precise, \ndefinite, through all Greek literature." Any such word \ncould expound itself. But this word cannot. Complete- \nness of condition is its essential demand. \n\n\n\n26. " Mersed by worldly affairs \xe2\x80\x94 we should struggle out \nand try to save ourselves, and reach the harbor." \n\nPlutarch. \n\nRhetorical figure carries the mind back to the circum- \nstances out of which the secondary use sprang. There- \nfore, to insist on introducing shipwreck, struggling, swim- \nming, reaching a harbor, into every conversational use of \nthe word, would be as stilted and as mistaken as to put \non a state dress to go out and do a day\'s ploughing. \n\n\n\n27. "Knowing him to be licentious and extravagant, \nand mersed by debts of fifty millions." Plutarch. \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY DEBT. 307 \n\n" Whelmed with debts amounting to fifty millions" \n(Conant). " Oppressed with a debt of five thousand myr- \niads" (Carson). \n\nConant figures the debts as a mass falling on the debtor, \nor as flowing waters rolling over him. It is entirely wrong, \naccording to Carson, to expound ftomnZw as bringing the \nelement over the object. The word demands that the \nobject be put into the element. Hence the figure which \nhe pictures, out of these same materials, is that of a man \nsinking, in still waters, with a millstone around his neck. \n" This debt was not poured upon him, nor poured into \nhim; but oppressed by it, as a load, he sunk, or became \ninsolvent" " The figure does not represent the mode of \nputting the debt on him, for in this there is no likeness. \nIt represents the debt, when on him, as causing him to \nsink." \n\nCarson forgets that he should make the debt to dip the \nman, not to sink him. But we get used to this slipping \none word into the place of another, in reading this writer. \nI would, also, call attention to the confusion and error \narising from the use of "oppress" as the equivalent of \npress. To press and to oppress are very different words. \nThe same amount of pressure may cause oppression to \none man and not to another. Debt or load may press on \na man, and his ability to bear the one or the other be \nentirely adequate. Debt or load which oppresses a man \nhas reached a measure exhaustive of his ability. When, \ntherefore, Dr. Carson translates by " oppress," he vin- \ndicates (in like maimer as Conant by his translation, \n"whelm") the point we advocate \xe2\x80\x94 namely, a secondary \nuse expressive of controlling influence. \n\nCarson has, heretofore, remarked: "To be dipped in \ndebt, supposes that we owe something considerable in \nproportion to our means." In this he is professedly speak- \ning of the Greek fiaKTi\'w, while, really, he is expounding \nthe English dip. Dipped, in connection with debt, in Eng- \nlish, implies but a slight indebtedness compared with the \nmeans to pay; baptized, in the same connection, was used \n\n\n\n808 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nby the Greeks to express indebtedness beyond all means \nto pay. "We may be dipped, in debt, without being \ndrowned. The last cannot be adequately represented by \nbaptizo, except when circumstances render the meaning \ndefinite." The reverse of this statement is the truth. A \nman baptized in water is a drowned man, unless there is \nevidence to the contrary; and a man baptized in debt is a \nruined man, unless there is evidence to the contrary. It is \nvery doubtful whether the English language can furnish \na second book equalling that of Carson in its confusion \nof important words. \n\nIt is not claimed that this mersion is in debts; the dative \nis instrumental, as elsewhere. In every aspect the passage \nvindicates the idea of controlling influence. \n\n\n\n28. "Eager that their children excel, quickly, in all \nthings, they impose on them labors beyond measure. . \xe2\x80\x9e \xe2\x80\x9e \nFor as plants are nourished by water, in measure, but are \nchoked by excess, after the same manner the soul grows \nby labors, in measure, but is mersed by excess." \n\nPlutasch, \n\nIt is impossible to figure "mersed" as a dipping in water \nwithout making Plutarch one of the saddest of blunderers. \n" The soul grows by limited labors, but is dipped in water \nby unlimited labors." Is that the way in which the pre- \nceptor of Trajan harmonized the members of a sentence? \nCertainly he succeeded better in the attempt immediately \npreceding \xe2\x80\x94 " Plants are nourished by water in measure, \nbut are choked by excess." We cannot consent to an in- \nterpretation of "mersed" which casts shame on this ac- \ncomplished Greek writer. If he affirms that the influence \nof moderate labor is healthy growth, then he affirms- that \nthe influence of excessive labor is unhealthy decay. Mod- \nerate labor is within the power, under the control, and \nmade subordinate by the soul, to its advantage; immod- \nerate labor is beyond the power, not subject to the control \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY STUDY. 309 \n\nof the soul, but subordinates the soul to itself, and injures \nor destroys it. To express such controlling influence, \nPlutarch employs the term in question. \n\nCarson thus comments-: " Mr. Ewing says, < the refer- \nence here to the nourishment of plants indicates pouring, \nonly, to be the species of watering alluded to in the term.\' \nBut in this figure there is no reference at all to the mode \nof watering plants. The reference is to the quantity of \nwater. The mode is not mentioned; but even were it \nmentioned, it would merely be a circumstance to which \nnothing corresponds in the thing illustrated. What critic \nwould ever think of hunting after such likeness in figur- \native language? There is, actually, no likeness between \nthe mode of watering plants and the proportioning of \nlabor to the mind of a pupil; and Plutarch is not guilty \nof such absurdity. To Plutarch\'s figure it would be quite \nthe same thing, if a pot of plants was dipped into water, \ninstead of having the water poured into it. The pot itself \nmight be dipped into water without any injury to the \nplants. The plants are injured when the water is suffered \nto lie about them in too great abundance, in whatever way \nit has been applied. The choking of the plant corresponds \nto the suffocation in baptism or immersion. The choking \nof the powers of the mind is elegantly illustrated by the \nchoking of the vegetable powers when a plant is covered \nin water. There is a beautiful allusion to the suffocation \nof an animal under water. Were Plutarch to arise from \nthe dead, with what indignation would he remonstrate \nagainst the criticism that makes him to refer to the mode, \nof watering plants, in a figure intended to illustrate the \nbad effects of too much study! How loudly would he \ndisclaim the cold, unnatural thought! Is it not possible \nto illustrate, figuratively, something by a reference to the \nmountains buried under the snow, without referring to the \nmanner of its falling, and pursuing the resemblance to the \nflakes of the feathered snow? So far from this, I assert, that \nthis manner of explaining figures is universally improper. \nKo instance could be more beautifully decisive in our \n\n\n\n310 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nfavor than the above figure of Plutarch. Mr. Ewing \nmakes him compare the choking of one thing to the over- \nwhelming of another. But the author himself compares \nthe choking of a plant, or the extinction of vegetable life, to \nthe choking or extinction of the mental powers; and in both \nthere is an elegant allusion to the choking of an animal \nunder water." \n\nIn this interpretation Carson abandons dip, all act, and \nmakes the solution turn on effect, a doctrine which he \nreprobated in Gale and Cox. This effect results from \n" water lying about" the plants. But can " dip" produce \nany such effect? Besides, it is not the "lying about," \nwhether by pouring or any other way, with which the \nsentiment has to do; but the consequent result, the in- \nfluence proceeding from such a condition. It is that de- \nstructive influence, and not a mersed condition, any more \nthan the form of the act, inducing such condition, of which \nPlutarch speaks. Carson cannot interpret the passage \nwithout an utter abandonment of that meaning, of which, \nhe says, he has made a " complete demonstration." \n\nCompare the views here announced with those on the \nbaptism of taxes. "In this figure the rulers are supposed \nto immerse the people. The literal translation is \xe2\x80\x94 < they do \nnot immerse the people with taxes.\' The people, in such \nfigure, sink by being weighed down with taxes. They \ncause the people to sink by their weight. It is a deep \nwater in which we sink. To sink by debt, figures the \ndebt as a load on our shoulders, while we are in deep \nwater. A man struggling for life in deep water, and at \nlast sinking by exhaustion, is a true picture of an insolvent \ndebtor." \n\nThus we see, when Dr. Carson can lay his hands on \nimmersing, sinking, plunging, or struggling, in water, whether \nlawfully or unlawfully, he works them into figure with a \nwill. But when the act is pour, why, then, to base inter- \npretation on that, is enough to stir old Plutarch in his \ngrave, and put a tongue between his crumbling teeth to \ncry out in indignation. When the act by which a baptism \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY STUDY. 311 \n\ntakes place is, or is supposed to be, dipping, plunging, \nsinking, mode is everything, and ^antiZio denotes modal \nact; but when the act of baptism is pour, then, "it is \nnought, it is nought," cries the controversialist; and \n$a.T-l*u} has nothing to do with the act; everything is con- \ncentred in effect, resultant condition, water lying about the \nplants, and consequent choking influence ! \n\nWhen it is claimed that hot iron may be cooled by pour- \ning water upon it, Carson is indignant that "the usual \nmode" should be disregarded. When it is pleaded that \nu the usual mode" of watering plants is by pouring, why, \nthen, the pot can be just as well dipped ! \n\nThe choking or extinction of the mental powers is com- \npared to the " choking of a plant." Plutarch does not say \none syllable about the choking of the mental powers, and \nthe introduction of the word is a surreptitious abandon- \nment of the claimed figure, dipped in water, for the in- \nfluence which results from a mersion. And as for the \nelegant allusion in "the soul mersed by excessive labor" \nto an " animal suffocating under water," Plutarch will not \nbe indignant at such an allusion being, most gratuitously, \nattributed to him, for Plutarch, alas, is dead! But Dr. \nCarson thinks that no likeness can be pointed out between \nan act and an effect. We are glad to hear him say so. \nHow it happens that he has undertaken to point out the \nresemblance between the act of baptism (mode and nothing \nbut mode) and the effect of debt, taxes, grief, sleep, wine \ndrinking, &c, &c, we will not attempt to explain. He \nsays : " Plutarch is not guilty of such absurdity." Put \nanother name for Plutarch, and will the commission of \nthe absurdity be wisdom ? \n\nWhether we regard the passage itself, or its attempted \nexposition by those who would expound it as a water \nfigure, we are shut up to the conclusion that controlling \ninfluence proceeding from excessive mental labor, is what \nis, only and directly, stated. \n\n\n\n312 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\n29. " The Io-Bacchus was sung in feasts and sacrifices \nof Bacchus, mersed with much wantonness." Proclus. \n\n\n\n"Im-bathed with much wantonness" (Conant). Bap- \ntist translators have a remarkable penchant for compound- \ning the translation of /SawnO as in im-merse, im-merge, \nsub-merge, over-whelm, zm-bathe, when there is no cor- \nresponding feature in the original. \n\nIt is, somewhat, remarkable that the power of the dative \nshould assert itself as agency contrary to the tendency \nof the use of zm-bathe to convert it into the mersing ele- \nment. Milton\'s language, probably, helped to this result. \nIn " imbathe, " dipping, plunging, sinking, all disappear. \nThe cherished dogma, u mode, and nothing but mode," \nhas utterly vanished. Im-bathe has not the strength of \nan infant to put its object in anything. It may, but does \nnot necessarily, envelop its object. It has extremely lim- \nited use in application to physical elements, and I do not \nknow that it is found in such use out of poetry. Im- \nbathe and bathe-in are no more equivalent, in use and \nmeaning, than are op-press and press-on. Imbathe and \noppress refer, almost exclusively, to things and influences \nwhich are un-physical. When Dr. Conant translates by \nthe very unusual word " imbathe," (unusual, I mean, in \nhis translations), he does, again, establish the position that \nthe usage we are examining is declarative of controlling \ninfluence. \n\nHe quotes Milton : " And the sweet odor of the return- \ning gospel imbathe his soul with the fragrancy of heaven." \nThe soul is not put into this heavenly fragrance, but it \ncomes upon the soul, and communicates to it its delights \naboundingly. A passage more parallel in sentiment mav \nbe found in Spenser : \n\n" That nigh his manly hart did melt away, \nBathed in wanton blis and wicked joy." \n\nImbathe always implies influence from the element or \nagency imbathing. Milton gives an illustration :\' . \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY WANTONNESS. 313 \n\n" Bearing her straight to aged Nereus\' hall, \nWho, piteous of her woes, rear\'d her lank head, \nAnd gave her to his daughters to imbathe \nIn nectar\'d lavers strew ; d with asphodel, \nAnd through the porch and inlet of each sense \nDropt in ambrosial oils till she revived, \nAnd underwent a quick immortal change." \n\nComus, 835-41. \n\nHence, when Dr. Conant says this is "the corresponding \nEnglish word," there is much truth in it, so far as this \nsecondary use is concerned; but very little so far as the \nprimary use is concerned ; as the facts abundantly show. \n\n\n\n30. "But when she (Philosophy) sees me mersed by \ngrief and carried away into tears, she is displeased." \n\nThemistius. \n\n"Whelmed by grief and moved to tears " (Conant). In \ntranslating elq ddxpua xara<pep6/x^o> \xe2\x80\x94 " moved to tears" \xe2\x80\x94 is it \ndesigned to treat this as figure? Is "tears" to be repre- \nsented as a town some distance off, to which "move" \ncarries Themistius ? Or, is xara<p\xc2\xa3p6/j.e>ov a rushing torrent, \nbearing the mourner for his father into some gulf or bay \ndenoted by " tears"? Does any one say, " this is inexcus- \nable ridicule." I answer, it is just such exposition as this \nthat Carson treats us to when he represents Egypt flooded \nwith water, and its inhabitants sinking in the flood with \nloads upon their backs labelled "taxes." Or, debtors \nfloundering in deep water, and going down under the \nburden of unreceipted bills. \n\nIf "moved to tears" is an everyday phrase, well under- \nstood as directly expressive of a change in feeling under \nsome powerful influence, which it becomes an imper- \ntinence to expound, soberly, as figure denoting a change \nin locality ; by what law is it that " mersed by grief" is \nexcluded from the same just method of interpretation? \n\n" Mersed by grief" was as familiar phraseology to the \n\n\n\n314 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nGreeks, expressive of the controlling influence of sorrow, \nas is " moved to tears" familiar to us, as expressive of a \nchange of feeling under tender influences. While the \norigin of hoth is obvious, frequent use has given to each \na direct power of expression which at once carries thought \nto the mind without any, the least, reversion to a pri \nmary use. \n\nThese phrases justly claim our recognition of them in \nthis their acquired character. \n\nWHAT IS IN PROOF? \n\nHaving seen exemplified by numerous passages \xe2\x80\x94 (1.) \nSimple intusposition without influence ; (2.) Intusposition \naccompanied with influence ; (3.) Intusposition for the sake \nof influence \xe2\x80\x94 we have, now, very conclusive evidence for, \n(4.) Influence without intusposition. \n\nThat such a change is no novelty in the history of lan- \nguage is evident: \n\n1. From an analogous change in pdimo. This word, orig- \ninally, meant to dip. By dipping into coloring matter the \nobject became colored; hence, came the secondary mean- \ning to dye, in which the original act, dip, was laid aside, and \nthe resultant influence of the act, color, was retained. \n\n2. By a similar change in steep. The primary use of \nthis word requires intusposition within a fluid, for the \npurpose of giving or receiving thorough influence. In \nthis respect it is quite identical with the third class above \nmentioned. But steep does, in usage, lay aside this intus- \nposition, both as of fact and of figure, retaining only the \nidea of fulness of influence. Witness the following : \n\n" The soveraine weede betwixt two marbles plaine \nShee pownded small, and did in peeces bruze ; \nAnd then atweene her lilly handes twaine \nInto his wound the juice thereof did scruze ; \nAnd round about, as she could well it uze, \nThe flesh therewith she suppled and did steepe." \n\nF. Q. iii, 5. \n\n\n\nBAPTISM WITHOUT INTUSPOSITION. 315 \n\nAlso this : \n\n\'.\' But faire Priscilla (so that lady hight) \nStill, by her wounded love did watch all night, \nAnd all the night for bitter anguish weepe, \nAnd with her tears his wounds did wash and steepe. \' \' \n\nF. Q. vi, 3. \n\n3. If this usage were originally tropical, it is an uneon- \ntroverted point, that tropical use may become literal. \n\n4. It is impossible to make these passages figure simple \nintusposition. With this they have no shadow of sym- \npathy. Every letter sends forth a ringing cry of influence. \nIt must, then, be intusposition for influence. But if so, \nthen we must rack our invention for an element (for none \nis stated) appropriate to each case. The idea of making \nwater the element into which these varied agencies merse \ntheir objects, is sheerest nonsense. \n\n5. There is no escape from influence under any inter- \npretation. We claim it proved that fiaxrgio, absolute or \nwith appropriate case, in unphysical relations, expresses \n\nCONTROLLING INFLUENCE without intusposition* \n\n\n\n316 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nCONTKOLLING INFLUENCE\xe2\x80\x94 SPECIFIC. \n\nWITH OR WITHOUT INTUSPOSITION. \n\nSECONDARY USE. \n\nThere are some tnings which exert over certain objects \na definite and unvarying influence. Whenever, therefore, \nPaKT&ui is employed to denote the relation between such \nagencies and their objects, it no longer expresses a merely \ngeneral influence, or one which, while receiving some \ncoloring, still admits a varied application; but gives de- \nvelopment, in the completest manner, to that specific in- \nfluence which belongs to the case in hand. The specific \ninfluence exerted by water over a human being put within \nit, is to drown. The specific influence of wine, freely drunk, \nis to intoxicate. The specific influence of an opiate is to \nstupefy. The specific symbol, influence of pure water, or \nsea water, used in religious rites, is to purify. \n\nThe rising sun does not more surely, or more necessarily, \nbring with it light, than does this Greek word, in such re- \nlations, bring with it the specific conceptions of induced \ndrowning, drunkenness, stupefaction, and purification. \nAnd it would be just as necessary and suitable to call in \nthe help of an old broom to aid the sun in clearing away \nthe mists of night, as to call in the help of figure to \nillumine a usage which is so perfectly self-resplendent. \n\nThis usage justifies, in the fullest manner, the conclusion \nfounded on the preceding passages, and goes beyond them, \nin that it justifies and enables us to employ specific terms, \nwhich definitely embody the influence in question, as the \nmost legitimate translation of the word, used absolutely, \nor, of a phrase, with which it is in living union. \n\nSome passages justifying this view will, now, be pre- \nsented. \n\n\n\nSPECIFIC INFLUENCE. 317 \n\n\n\nSPECIFIC INFLUENCE. \n\n1. *Hv ru) auTa> <papij.dy.aj zarafia-riffaq. \n\nAchilles Tatius, Leuc. and Clit., ii, 31. \n\n2. Btzfia-rlaOcu tz tu~j dxpara) . . . duxs\'cri. \n\nAthenaius; Philos. Banq., v, 64. \n\n3. Elz iXeuOipav a<p7 { X\xc2\xa3V fta-riaaq ippwpi>ojq. \n\nAthenceus ; Philos. Banq., ix, 44. \n\n4. "Oivoj ds ~oXXu~) \'AAigav&pov patriaaaa. Conon; Narrat., L. \n\n5. Ba-riZst d\'v-vcp yetrovt too Oavdroo. Evenus Paros ; Epigr., xv. \n\n6. "Ydare ,3airrt^\xc2\xa3Tat . . . udart za-aefcffOh. Homeric Alleg n p. 495. \n\n7. KapTjfapouvzc xa\\ j3\xc2\xa3 l 3aizTt(Tfj.i^aj k\'or/.s. Lucian ; Bacchus, vii. \n\n8. \'Autos li/j} raiv %Okq ftsfto.-T\xc2\xabj;j.ivajv. Plato ; Banquet, iv. \n\n9. Kai iyuj yvobq pa-TiX,6rxsvov to pecpdxiov. Plato ; Euthedemus vii. \n\n10. Ba-riXovTsq ix tzlOujv [isydXojv . . . -pol-v;o\\>. \n\nPlutarch ; Alexander, Ivii. \n\n11. KpaixaXujai yap ezt to yOi^ov xdi $z$a~Ti<Tixlvoi$. \n\nPlutarch; Water and Land Anim., xxiii. \n\n12. Ebxpaaia ad);xaToq afia-T\'MTou xai kXaarpoo. Plutarch) Banq., vi. \n\n13. To dl awixa . . . ij.r~.aj jSsfia-T\'.cr/xiyov. li " iii ? 8. \n\n14. Ba-Ti^etv tov Aiovuffffov ~poq Tr t v OdXazTav. " PhyS- Ques., X. \n\n15. Kai pd-TiGov (jsauTov It- QaXafffrav^ Plutarch; Superstition, iii. \n\n1. AYbom having de-mersed by the same drug. Achilles Tatius. \n\n2. You seem to be mersed by unmixed wine. Athencerus. \n\n3. Then, mersing powerfully, he set me free. " \n\n4. Having . mersed Alexander by much wine. Conon. \n\n5. Merses by a sleep, neighbor of death. . . Evenus. \n\n6. Merses by water. . . . quenched by water. Homeric Alleg. \n\n7. Eesembles one heavyheaded and mersed. Lucian \n\n8. I myself am of those mersed yesterday. . Plato. \n\n9. I knowing the youth to have been mersed. " \n\n10. Mersing out of great wine-jars, drank to one another. \n\nPlutarch. \n\n11. Crippled and mersed by yesterday\'s debauch. " \n\n12. A good temperament of the body, immersed and active. \n\nPlutarch. \n\n13. But the body not yet mersed. ... " \n\n14. To merse Bacchus at the sea. ... " \n\n15. And merse thyself, (going) to the sea. . " \n\n\n\n318 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nSPECIFIC INFLUENCE. \nSTUPEFACTION. \n\n" Satyrus had somewhat left of the drug by which he \nhad put Conops to sleep. Of this, while serving us, he \npours, secretly, into the last cup which he brought to \nPanthia. She, rising, went into her chamber and imme- \ndiately slept. But Leucippe had another chamber servant, \nwhom, having mersed by the same drug, Satyrus comes \nto the doorkeeper, at the third door; and him he cast down \nby the same potion." Achilles Tatius. \n\nFour cases are here presented, with varying phraseology, \nin which the work of stupefaction is accomplished by an \nopiate drug. \n\nAre these cases all spoken of under the form of figure? \nAre some presented in figurative dress, and some in \nliteral attire? Or, are all spoken of with a simple, prosaic \nliterality ? \n\nIf all are figure, by what figure are Conops and Panthia \nput to bed? Does the drug, under figure, perform the \noffice of a chamberlain ? \n\nAnd by what figure is the doorkeeper " cast down " to \nthe ground? Does the drug, here, represent an expert \nin wrestling, or a bludgeon, or what? And Leucippe\'s \nhandmaid, by what figure is she "whelmed" (Conanf), \nor dipped, as Carson would insist? Does this drug, now \n(chameleon-like), take the shape of a " mountain wave," \nor "a rushing torrent," or a weighty bale of "\'pothecary \nstuff," like unto the bales of "taxes" and "debts," &c, \nwhich we have seen baptizing, whelming, dipping, sinking \nso many heretofore ? \n\nIf this view is not satisfactory, is there a mixture of the \nliteral and figurative ? And who is to take the responsi- \nbility of this clay-iron style of writing? In the absence \nof Tatius, I, as his nearest friend, beg that it may be laid \nat some other door than his. \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY A DRUG. 319 \n\nMost persons will see, in this passage, a very uncmbel- \nlished statement of the controlling influence of this drug: \nand as it was soporific in its nature, always producing one \ndefinite effect, they will recognize the propriety of trans- \nlating the word which represents this influence by the \nspecific term \xe2\x80\x94 to stupefy. \n\nDRUNKENNESS. \n\n"You seem to me, O convivialists! to be flooded, be- \nyond expectation, with impetuous words, and to be mersed \nby unmixed wine." Athenveus. \n\nThe description of the wine, which causes this mersion, \nas " unmixed," determines, in the most absolute manner, \nthat no physical " whelming" or " dipping" is in the mind \nof the writer. As it is of no consequence to a drowned \nman whether it is salt water or fresh water that drowns \nhim, so it is of no consequence, in a physical mersion, \nwhether mixed or unmixed wine be used. But when the \ninfluence of wine, as an intoxicating drink, is in question, \nthen it is a matter of prime importance whether it is the \none or the other. As Athenseus lays emphasis on the wine \nas without any mixture of water, he could only intend to \nexpress its fullest intoxicating power. Unmixed wine, \nfreely used by convivialists, invariably produces one effect \n\xe2\x80\x94 makes drunk \xe2\x80\x94 therefore, the word which embodies such \nintoxicating influence may, with the highest propriety, be \ntranslated by the specific word expressive of drunkenness. \n\n\n\n" Then mersing, powerfully, he set me free." \n\nAthen^us. \n\n" The servant girl, describing the effect of a cup of wine, \ngiven by her master, says : \' Then whelming potently he \nset me free.\'" (Conant.) \n\nDr. Conant, in making ftaTritraq express an " effect," be- \ncomes exposed to the charge of treason to the cause, as \nbrought by Dr. Carson. "Potently" is not a proper quali- \n\n\n\n320 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ntying term for dipping; nor for whelming, or rnersing, or \nbaptizing, in primary use. The agency may be potent, \nbut not the condition. It is, entirely, proper as character- \nizing the secondary use, expressive of controlling influence. \nA specific translation, here, is more than justified. \n\n\n\n4. " Thebe exhorted to the murder, and having mersed \nand put to sleep Alexander, by much wine, she dismisses \nthe guards of the bedchamber under pretext of using the \nbath, and called the brothers to the work." Conon. \n\n" Having immersed Alexander in wine \xe2\x80\x94 that is, having \nmade him drunk with wine" (Carson). \n\nThis translation shows the intenseness of theory, while \nit exposes its error. \n\n1. " Immersed." This word is, professedly, used as \nsynonymous with dip. This profession is never carried \nout in practice, nor can ever be. Here, as in unnum- \nbered other places, dip is slipped out and immerse is \nslipped in, because the former would not answer the \npurpose. To " dip any one in wine," for the purpose of \nrepresenting a state of drunkenness, is figure which no \nthoughtful person ever employed. (1.) Because of incon- \nI sistency. Hipping causes but a trivial effect, while drunk- \nenness is one of power. (2.) Because of want of adapta- \ntion. Nothing is made drunk by being put into wine. \n\nBut "immerse" is as unsuitable, for other reasons, as \ndip. No one insists more strongly than Carson that the \nwhole person, in baptism, must go within the element, \nconsequently, Alexander must go, head and ears, within \nthe wine; and when there, he must stay there long enough \nto imbibe the intoxicating qualities of the element. How \nlong this will take I cannot say; but quite probably before \nhe gets drunk he will have got drowned. Such a case \nshows the Baptist error of confounding a dipping with a \nbaptism. The qualities of wine cannot be extracted by a \ndipping, if they may by a baptism. It shows, also, the \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY WINE. 321 \n\nessential error of a figure which represents drunkenness \nby immersing a living being in wine, A condition which has \nno tendency to make drunk, hut which must drown. \n\n2. "Much wine." Much is, significantly, omitted in the \ntranslation. It lias no fitness in announcing a physical \nmersion. What matters it whether Alexander were physi- \ncally merscd in " much wine" or not? There is no signifi- \ncance in any quantity beyond what will barely suffice. \nDr. Carson felt this, and throws it out. But this word is, \neminently, significant, if the writer means directly to ex- \npress a state of intoxication. " Much wine" gives empha- \nsis to the influence exerted. \n\n3. " In wine." The introduction of m, localizing the \ntyrant of Pheroe within the wine, is an error resulting \nfrom the previous error in the form of act attributed to \nthe verb. If dip (or its claimed equivalent, immerse) be \nassociated with a fluid, that fluid necessarily becomes the \nelement, and if no appropriate preposition is furnished, \none must be supplied. This Dr. Carson has found it ne- \ncessary to do. Error begets error. This construction, with \nits translation, it is important to notice. \n\nIn the phrase, Ipd-rzro S\'atfiart Xifivrj, the translation turns \non the meaning assigned to the verb. Take the old Bap- \ntist position \xe2\x80\x94 ^d-rw has but one meaning, to dip \xe2\x80\x94 and, of \nnecessity, " the lake becomes dipped in blood." It is all \nidle to talk about rhetoric, bad taste, instrumental dative, \nand such like things, so long as the prime error is sus- \ntained. Abandon this error; admit that fid-ntto has a second- \nary meaning in which no form of act appears, and every \nother error is carried with it. And, then, we have \xe2\x80\x94 "the \nlake dyed by blood." What a difference! The rectifica- \ntion of one word works the change. Color takes the place \nof the form of an act; instrumentality takes the place of \nlocality; and literality takes the place of figure. \n\nYv"e, thus, see what vital issues depend on the right de- \ntermination of the value of pa\xe2\x80\x94i\'w. Has it " but one \n\n21 \n\n\n\n322 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nmeaning through all Greek literature \xe2\x80\x94 mode and nothing \nhut mode \xe2\x80\x94 to dip " ? Or, is it devoid of all modal action \xe2\x80\x94 \ndemanding a condition of intusposition ? And does it, \nwith a parallelism to fid-~aj, lay aside this primary demand \nfor intusposition, and substitute for it a demand, only, for \ncontrolling influence, which attends on some phases of in- \ntusposition, as dyeing on some cases of dipping? Apply \nthe one view, or the other, to a passage, quite parallel to \nthat just mentioned \xe2\x80\x94 onvm rijv Mtv ifidhmZov \xe2\x80\x94 and "plunged \nthe city in sleep," is the translation promptly offered by \nthe advocates of the first view. It is all in vain to plead \nagainst the use of a term expressive of violence in connec- \ntion with "sleep. It is vain to speak of the questionable \nrhetoric which picks up a city to plunge it into sleep. It \nis equally in vain to plead for instrumentality in the dative. \nThe ear is deaf. It is filled, to repletion, with "one mean- \ning, modal action, dip, plunge." Accept the alternative \nview, and \xe2\x80\x94 "the city is thoroughly influenced by sleep." So \nlong as the old error in defining /Sd^rw is fastened on to \npaxT\xc2\xa3a>, we must have errors of conception and translation \nin the latter word paralleling those, now abau cloned, which \nmark the history of the former word. \n\nCarson dips, plunges, immerses Alexander in wine, in- \nstead of allowing him to be " influenced (made drunk) by \nwine." He might as well have allowed Gale to dip the \nlake in blood, and not have insisted on its being influenced \n(dyed) by blood. \n\nInterpretation. \xe2\x80\x94 After having, most loyally, paid trib- \nute to theory and system by introducing modal act and \nfigure into his translation, Carson adds \xe2\x80\x94 " that is having" \nmade him, drunk with wine." With this admission of the \nmeaning, and with the admission of Conant (in his trans- \nlation, "whelmed with wine"), that there was no dipping, \neven in the figure, we may be satisfied that we do not \ngreatly err in the position that influence is directly ex- \npressed, and as that influence can take but one form, the \ntranslation is faithful which says, "having made Alexander \ndrunk by much wine." \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY WINE. 323 \n\nThis baptism claims attention in other aspects : \n\n1. A physical, fluid element was present in the baptism \nand causative of it, while there was no physical mersion in \nthis physical element. The idea of a figurative mersion \nin the wine drunk is untenable in every aspect. Carson \nwould not put Otho in his debts; why will he put Alex- \nander in his cups, or in his casks? But enough of figure. \nISTo one pretends that "the Tyrant" was physically dipped, \nmersecl, or drowned. And yet a fluid element was present, \nwas operative, and there was no physical mersion in it, or \nin anything else, although we are told by controversialists, \n"Alexander was dipped, immersed in much wine." \n\n2. There was a baptism, it was caused by this fluid, yet \nnot by it as a fluid. \n\nThe causative power of wine to effect this baptism was \nnot its character as a liquid, but as possessed of an intoxicat- \ning quality. The exercise of this quality over the husband \nof Thebe did, in the estimation and absolute language of \nthe Greeks, baptize him \xe2\x80\x94 merse him \xe2\x80\x94 as really and truly \nas if, instead of being laid in his chamber, he had been \nlaid in the lowest cavern of the sea. The nature of the \nbaptisms differs : the reality is equal. \n\n3. The mode of using this baptizing element was by \ndrinking. \n\nThus is its power to baptize developed. The skin is \nbapted by the rays of the sun falling on it. The intellect \nand the body are baptized by draughts from the wine-cup. \n\n4. Symbol wine baptism may be set forth by sprinkling \nthe intoxicating element. \n\n" Poure out the wine without restraint or stay; \nPoure not by cups, but by the belly full ; \nPoure out to all that wall, \n\nAnd sprinkle all the posts and wals with wine, \nThat they may sweat, and drunken be withal." \n\nSpenser, Epithalamion. \n\n\n\n324 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n5. " Bacchus \xe2\x80\x94 wine \xe2\x80\x94 merses by sleep, the neighbor of \ndeath." Etenus. \n\n"Plunges in sleep, neighbor of death" (Concent). This \nform- of translation differs, both remarkably and unaccount- \nably, from the very uniform translation adopted in other \ncases, identical in spirit and in grammatical structure. I \ngive the translation of all the passages from classical \nwriters, containing the simple dative, under the head, \n" Figurative Sense/\' in Dr. Conant\'s classification. \n\n1. " Whereby" (i. e. hj which desertion) " the city would \nhave been whelmed." 2. \'\'Whelmed by the calamity." 3. \n" Whelmed with such a multitude of evils." 4. " Whelmed \nby anger." 5. " Whelm the common people with taxes." \n6. "Whelmed with debts." 7. "Overwhelmed by such \nas are excessive." 8. " Whelmed with undiluted wine." \n9. "Whelmed with much wine." 10. " Imbathed with \nmuch wantonness." 11. " Whelmed with him in his grief." \n12. " When midnight had plunged the city in sleep." \n\nThus, in every passage (but one, and in that relating to \nsleep), the translation is by whelm, and with the preposi- \ntions (by, with) expressive of instrumentality. " Plunge H \nsleep" is not only out of harmony with Dr. Conant\'s trans- \nlations, but with the facts of nature. Dr. Cox complains \nof opponents translating by plunge, because that word ex- \npresses " suddenness- and violence." But neither " mid- \nnight" nor "wine" does "suddenly" or "violently" \nplunge into sleep. Midnight perfects what earlier hours \nof the night have been steadily bringing on. Wine does \nnot, primarily, induce sleep; that is a secondary result; \ntherefore, it cannot be characterized as sudden or violent. \n\nIt is very clear, both on general views of the meaning \nof the word and the special features of the case, that \n"plunge" has no right to appear here. Dismissing it, \nthen we have no difficulty in recovering " sleep" from its \nfalse position as element, and instating it in its true posi- \ntion, as an instrument in the hands of Bacchus. \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY SLEEP. 325 \n\nThe alliance of a drunken sleep with death is founded \nin nature. \n\nu Ne would he suffer Sleepe once thether-ward \nApproch, albe his drowsy den were next; \nFor next to Death is Sleepe to be compared; \n\nTherefore his house is unto his annext." Spenser. \n\n\n\n6. " Since, now, a mass of iron, pervaded with fire, \ndrawn out of the furnace, is mersed by water, and the \nheat, by its own nature quenched by water, ceases." \n\nHomeric Allegories. \n\n" Since the mass of iron, drawn red-hot from the fur- \nnace, is plunged in water" (Conant). \n\n1. It is as certain as anything in philology, that " plunge," \ndistinctively, as expressing a form of action, does not define \n$<nrc&<i>. To overflow, as expressing a form of action, is as \nnear the contradictory of plunge as it can well be; yet \noverflow is used by Baptist scholars to define this Greek \nword. And in such use overflow performs its duty, to say \nthe least, as faithfully as does plunge. But it is a philo- \nlogical axiom, that where two differing forms of action \ncan be employed in the exposition of the same word, such \nword can be, strictly, defined by neither. \n\nPlunge has no right to appear as the critical representa- \ntive of t 3a-riZio. And in any case of baptism where the form \nof act is not expressly stated (it can never be learned from \nthe word itself), it is entirely inexcusable for any one to \nbring forward the form of an act, insist upon its autocratic \nrights, and fashion the phraseology after its model. \n\nXo argument can be grounded on the assumption of a \nplunging. \n\n2. The simple dative, with parM*\xe2\x84\xa2, announces, with au- \nthority, the presence of agency and not of element. \n\nThere is, therefore, no authority in udan ^a-zi^erat for \nsaying that hot iron is " plunged in water." If it is urged, \n\n\n\n326 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nin defence, that water is capable of receiving hot iron by \nplunging; this is freely admitted. If it is urged, "hot \niron is very frequently, in fact, plunged in water," this, \ntoo, is unhesitatingly admitted. And after all else can \nbe said, the reply is short and crushiug \xe2\x80\x94 1. BaTtxi^m says \nnothing about plunging. 2. Hot iron may be mersed in \nother ways than by plunging. 3. The phraseology indi- \ncates the agency by which, and not the element in which, \nthe result is accomplished. Eational discussion must here \nend. \n\nWine is capable of having an object "plunged in it;" \nyet Dr. Conant does not say that Alexander was plunged \nin it, in fact," but whelmed by it. A soporific potion is ca- \npable of having an object plunged in it; yet Dr. Conant \ndoes not say that Leucippe\'s maid was so treated; but \nwhelmed with it. \n\n3. A fluid element may be used, as an agency, in baptism, \nand accomplish such baptism, without involving the baptized ob- \nject in a physical mersion. \n\nThis is a vital position, and, if made good, carries every- \nthing with it. In support of it, now, I observe :(l.yWine, \na fluid element, has already been seen, as an agency, to \neffect a baptism without any phj^sical mersion. " But this \nwas figurative, and mersion is supposed to be in it." This \nis an error. First. There is no sign of any such figure. \nSecond. The wine is used as agency, and not as element. \nThird. The physically mersing quality of the fluid has noth- \ning to do with the baptism. It is, exclusively, its intoxi- \ncating quality and the introduction of its physical quality is \na huge blunder. When Alexander was brought, through \nthe intoxicating principle, into a drunken condition, he was \nbaptized. Call this figure, if you will; it was baptism by \na fluid element, in which its nature as a fluid had no con- \ncern. A distinctive principle, which is itself devoid of \ncovering qualities, performed the baptism. Wine baptizes \nby its intoxicating principle solely; robbed of this it ceases to \nbaptize. Baptize is applied to the case, not because of \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY WATER WITHOUT INTUSPOSITION. 327 \n\nany physical investiture of the object, real or supposed, but \nbecause of a controlling influence. \n\n2. An opiate potion, a fluid element, has, also, been seen \nto effect a baptism without any physical mersion. As in \nthe case of wine, the fluid character of the agency had \nnothing to do with the baptism. No one has suggested \n" plunging" the doorkeeper into the potion to put him to \nsleep; and into the wine to make him drunk. Why not? \nA man put into the " elixir of opium" would as soon be \nput to sleep, as one put into a wine-cup, or cask, would be \nmade drunk. And both would be put into that long sleep \nwdiich "knows no waking." But the physically mersing \nquality of this drug-potion has nothing to do with the case. \nIt is limited, solely, to the soporific principle. Had the \ndrug been in the form of a pill, it would have baptized \nequally well. But what, then, would have become of the \nfigure by which the baptized are to be " plunged in " a pill? \nThe somnific quality of a potion drunk exhausts its bap- \ntizing power. Fluidity is an accident, a mere vehicle of \nthe controlling influence. \n\n( 3) Water, by its deintoxicating qualit} r , when mixed \nwith wine, baptizes wine. Does it do so by any physically \nmersing quality? All such notion, through figure or fact, \nis put to flight by such a baptism. \n\n(4.) Dr. Fuller admits a case of baptism by water where \nthe drenching qualities of water took the place of physical \nmersion. I do not enter into the case, because it is outside \nof classic writers; but I glance at the admitted existence \nof a case parallel with those in hand, and uniting to prove, \nthat a quality of a fluid developed in a controlling degree \nover its object, is legitimately termed a baptism. Dr. \nFuller retreats from the ruins of his falling system with \nthe cry \xe2\x80\x94 " The writer is one of the most impassioned of \nmen!" \n\n( 5.) The passage before us sustains the position. Water \nhas many qualities besides that which adapts it for physical \n\n\n\n328 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nenvelopment. It will make very wet, as in Dr. Fuller\'s case, \nwhen poured on profusely ; it will make unintoxicating when \npoured in wine ; and it will make cold when poured on hot \niron. And all these cases of controlling influence, apart \nfrom physical envelopment, the Greeks called baptisms. \n\nHeraclides Ponticus (if the writer of the passage) gives \nan allegorical representation of Mars, Vulcan, and Nep- \ntune, under the symbols, Iron, Fire, and Water. Mars \n(iron) is held under the power of Vulcan (lire); but Vulcan \nbeing brought under the power of ISTeptune (water), Mars \nis set at liberty. \n\nThe point involved in this representation is not whether \nwater can physically merse iron, but the relation between \nheat and water. The writer says that heat is of such a \nnature that it is mastered, mersed, completely controlled \nby water. This is not true of cold iron. Cold iron may be \nmersed in water ; but this mersion is essentially different \nfrom the mersion of hot iron by water. The one is simply \na mersion of position. Iron may be mersed a thousand \nyears in water and not be influenced by it. The other is \na mersion of influence. This has nothing to do with posi- \ntion. Hot iron is mastered, subdued, influentially bap- \ntized, robbed of its heat, by water, however brought in \ncontact with it. Let it be remembered that it is the*rela- \ntion of water and heat, and not of water and iron, which \nis involved. The live chicken of the Roman poet was \nmersed by wine through mersion in wine, because the \ninfluence desired (drowning) could not be secured in any \nother way. Alexander was mersed by wine, not by mers- \ning in wine; because the influence desired could not be \nsecured in this way. It was not designed to have the \nphysically mersing quality in drowning; but its influentially \nmersing quality in making drunk. Therefore, Alexander \nwas not mersed in the wine, but the wine was mersed in \nAlexander. It was, only, thus that he could be mersed \nby wine. \n\nHot iron, when desired to be brought into a state of \ncoldness, may be mersed by water by being mersed in \n\n\n\nBAPTISxM BY WATER WITHOUT INTUSPOSITION. 329 \n\nwater; or, if the iron be hollow, by mersing the water in \nthe iron; or, if solid, by pouring the water over it; or, by \nsprinkling the water upon it. It is a matter of the most \nabsolute indifference how the water is applied ; fia-TiZu \nclaims no control over it, and is infinitely indifferent to it. \nAlthough physical bodies are embraced in the transaction, \nstill, physical mersion is not at issue; but the quality of \nwater to induce a condition of coldness in a heated body. No \none will say, that to induce this, physical intusposition is \nnecessary. Mersion by water, and mersion in water, are \ntwo vastly different statements. Mersion by wine, and \nmersion in w r ine, are equally at variance. Mersion by a \nsoporific draught, and mersion in a soporific draught, \nidiocw, only, could confound. \n\nIleraclides does not say one syllable about a mersion in \nwater. He says, that "red hot iron mersed by water" \xe2\x80\x94 \nbrought under the cold-inducing quality of water \xe2\x80\x94 " the \nheat is quenched by the water, and ceases." \n\nThe use of the w T ord must not be made the occasion of \nerror. Ba-r^(o, second, must neither be deprived of its \npeculiar rights and privileges, nor made responsible for \nduties which belong exclusively to fiaTzzgu), first. Ba-z^w, \nlike fidTzrw, is geminal. For a very long time the distinct \npersonality of the second w T as denied, and merged in the \nfirst. Whenever the second pdnTw appeared he was made, \nwill or nill, to dip, by figure. And, now, the second fiaxxi^u) \nis made, rationally or irrationally, to piit under icater, by \nfigure. It often happens that heated iron is of such \nweight, or form, or in such relations, that it cannot be \nphysically mersed. I have witnessed such cases mersed \xe2\x80\x94 \nbrought old of a hot state into a cold state \xe2\x80\x94 by water, both \npoured and sprinkled. \n\nSpenser seems to have had his eye on the very passage \nbefore us when he wrote : \n\n" And hundred furnaces all burning bright \nTo melt the golden metall, ready to be tryde: \nOne with great bellowes gathered filling ayre, \nAnd with forst wind the i\'ewell did inflame ; \n\n\n\n330 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nAnother did the dying bronds repayre \n"With yron tongs, and sprinekled oft the same \nWith liquid waves fiers Vuleans rage to tame, \nWho, maystering them, renewd his former heat." \n\n5. Corollary. \xe2\x80\x94 Whenever any liquid, possessed of a quality \ncapable of exerting a controlling influence of any kind whatever, \nis applied to an object so as to develop such influence, it is said, \non all classical authority, to baptize that object, without regard \nto mode of application, and with as little regard to physical \nposition. \n\n\n\n7. " When an old man drinks, and Silenus takes pos- \nsession of him, immediately, he is, for a long time, silent, \nand resembles one heavy-headed and mersed." Lucian. \n\nThis passage gives the clearest evidence for a secondary \nuse and sense. Lncian is not speaking of drinking from \na wine-cup, but from the fountain of Silenus. He does \nnot describe directly the effect of such drinking, except as \nto its inducing "silence;" in other respects, he says, the \ndrinker "resembles one heavy-headed and mersed." \n\nIn this statement, paririZu) is joined with a word which, \nin its literal, primary meaning, expresses one of the feat- \nures of wine-influence over the system, \xe2\x80\x94 " heavy-headed- \nness." It is incredible that a reference to intoxication \nwould thus mix up together the literal and the figurative. \nIf "heavy-head" is literal, "mersed," also, is literal. \nAgain: We use for illustration things well known, to \nthrow light on things less known. " Heavy-headedness \nand mersion," therefore, must have been things well un- \nderstood, as they are the illustrative explanation of the \ninfluence exerted upon those drinking of the Silenic fount. \nISTow, these terms are used by Lucian to express a state \nof intoxication. They must, therefore, have been in fa- \nmiliar use, with such meaning. I\'he language bears, on \nits face, evidence of well-worn, every-day use. "Mersed" \nis used absolutely and as self-explanatory. A coin worn \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY DRINKING, AT A FOUNTAIN. 331 \n\nsmooth by use, a golden eagle with the bird of Jove worn \naway b} T attrition in passing through the hands of the mil- \nlion, does not more fully self-evidence long and familiar use, \nthan does this phraseology prove every-day familiarity to \nthe popular lip and ear. \n\nBut again: The idea of figure is precluded, because \nresemblances arc not traceable between facts and figures. \nFigure cannot be the basis of figure. If Lucian uses the \ncondition of mersion to expound some other condition, \nthen the condition expressed by mersion must be a reality, \nand not the figure of something else. \n\nWe, then, have the case of a man not only baptized by \na fluid element, but at a fountain without any mersion \nin it. \n\nWhat higher evidence we could have that the Greeks \nappropriated this word to express a state of drunkenness, \nI do not know. \n\n\n\n8. " For I myself, am of those who, yesterday, were \nmersed." Plato. \n\nAgain, we have the absolute use of the word without \nthe slightest indication of a picture or a comparison. Lan- \nguage could not be used more deeply stamped with the evi- \ndence of self-completeness. Yet Dr. Carson says: " When \nbaptizo is applied to drunkenness it is taken figuratively; \nand the point of resemblance is between a man completely \nunder the influence of wine and an object completely sub- \njected to a liquid in which it is completely immersed" (p. \n80). It is an error to say, " a man completely under the \ninfluence of wine resembles an object completely immersed \nin water." Because, 1. There is nothing in the former \ncase to which the envelopment in the latter can be resem- \nbled. Wine does not exert its intoxicating influence by the \nenvelopment of its object. 2. Envelopment of an object \nin water does not necessarily exert an influence over the \nimmersed object. A flint stone, immersed in water, experi- \n\n\n\n332 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nences no influence from the enveloping fluid. 3. "When \nthe object is of such a nature as to be influenced by such \nposition, as a man suffocated by encompassing water, there \ncan be no resemblance to such position ; because a drunken \nman is in no analogous position. The resemblance must \nbe confined to the influence, to the exclusion of position \ninducing such influence ; and in the influence there must \nbe a farther limitation : its specific character must be dis- \nregarded; for there is no resemblance between the spe- \ncific influence of wine drunk, and the specific influence of \nwater over a man immersed in it. There is, then, noth- \ning left but the controlling power as common to the one \nand the other. Wine, in its fully developed influence, \nsways a complete and controlling influence over the intellect \nand body; water sways a complete and controlling influence \nover a living man immersed in it. There is no resem- \nblance between the mode in which the influence is exerted, \nfor there is no resemblance between drinking and immer- \nsion ; there is no resemblance in the specific influence, \nfor there is no resemblance between drunkenness and suf- \nfocation; the resemblance is, and only is, in controlling \npower : the wine controls human intellect, the water con- \ntrols human life. \n\nThis is the original ground on which the word became \napplied in secondary use; but to say that every use through \na thousand years must carry a designed, or an appre- \nhended, resemblance, is to set at naught endless facts and \nclearest principles in the development of language. All \nresemblance might be expected to disappear, first, from \nthe form of utterance; then, from conscious intellectual \napprehension, leaving behind, only, the abstract thought \nof controlling influence. The facts of usage show that \nsuch was the case. An advance step would give the word, \nby frequent appropriation, a specific character. This seems \nto have been done, as in this and other passages, by its \nidentification with wine-influence. " I was of those, yes- \nterday, mersed \xe2\x80\x94 made drunk." \n\nThe perfectly analogous development of ^<mxo) has al- \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY WINE. 333 \n\nready been pointed out. Dr. Conant translates: " I my- \nself am one of those who, yesterday, were overwhelmed." \nBy this translation he falls under the ban of Carson, who \naffirms, " The classical meaning of the word is, in no in- \nstance, overwhelm" (p. 311). Whence this contradiction \nbetween the ablest Controversialist and the Scholar with- \nout a superior among Baptists, in regard to a word of \n" one meaning, easily understood, and to make a difficulty \nin translating which is all a pretence"? Carson rejects \n" overwhelm," because the word means the definite act, \n"dip and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature;" \na -position which icill never be maintained again by any scholar \nof half the learning of Carson, after looking through the \nfacts of usage. This is not Conant\'s position. But what \nhis position is, is left in obscurity by the commingling of \nthe inconsistent terms, dip and plunge, severely modal in \nform of act, and the use of immerse, immerge, and sub- \nmerge, equivocal as to form of action; as, also, by the use \nof the terms whelm, overwhelm,, imbathe, immodal as to \nact, but having a secondary use expressive of controlling \ninfluence, while such use is denied. \n\nIn the passage before us, as an English word, "over- \nwhelm" can, only, have the meaning of controlling in- \nfluence. To say that it does, and is designed to figure \n" mountain billows, rushing torrents, sweeping inunda- \ntion, sinking with a millstone weight in deep water," is \npreposterous. The meaning of controlling influence is \nsustained by the quotation given by Conant: " In this use, \nthe Greek word corresponds to the English word drench. \nSo, Shakspeare, Macbeth, i, 7, (speaking of the \' spongy \nofficers\' plied \'with wine and wassail,\')" \n\n" "When in swinish sleep \nTheir drenched nature lies." \n\nin a note, Dr. Conant adds: " Icelandic, dreclda, to plunge \nin water; Swedish, draenca, same sense; also, to drown. \xe2\x80\x94 \nDiet, of Eng. Etymol., \\Ycdfjcv:ood,.\' n He might have farther \nadded, Saxon, drencean, to soak, to inebriate; Dutch, drcn- \n\n\n\n334 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nken, to water, to soak. Is any support, herein, given to \nthe idea that "overwhelm" means to plunge, or to be \nswept away by billows and torrents? Is it not established \nthat "drench" has a secondary meaning, and a specific \nappropriation like fia-KT&m, to express "drowning" and\' in- \nebriety ? \n\nDrench, like (tami\'to, expresses no form of act, but con- \ndition. The condition demanded may be effected by any, \ncompetent, form of act; whether it be that of sprinkling, , \npouring, dipping, plunging, sinking, whelming, or what \nnot. " Drench with water" is a command, not to execute \na form of action, but to effect a certain condition ; to wet \nthoroughly, to bring completely under the wetting quality \nof water. "Drench with wine" is a command, not to \nsubject to the wetting quality of wine, but to bring com- \npletely under its intoxicating quality by drinking. "Drench \nwith rhubarb" is neither to make wet, nor to make drunk, \nbut to bring fully under its \'purgative quality. \n\nDr. Conant is right in saying "the Greek word corres- \nponds to the English word drench," inasmuch as drench \nexpresses, 1. Condition, and not the form of an act. 2. \nCompletely developed influence. 3. Appropriation to \ndrowning and drunkenness. He, therefore, errs when he \ntranslates the Greek word by " overwhelm," using it in \nany other sense than that of complete influence, unless he \nwill attach to it the Saxon idea " to inebriate," and admit \nthat paxriXa) has secured to itself the power to express, \ndirectly, a condition of intoxication. \n\nTO BEWILDER. \n\n9. "I knowing that the youth was mersed, wishing to \nrelieve him." Plato. \n\nCleinias, a young man, in company with some sophists, \nwas hopelessly embarrassed by a series of subtle questions \naddressed to him. And, on this foundation, shall we \nsketch a picture of a youth exposed to rolling billows and \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY QUESTIONS. 335 \n\nsweeping torrents? If Gale was justly liable to the charge \nof a " monstrous perversion of taste," in dipping a lake \ninto a frog\'s blood, to avoid a secondary meaning to fid-mm; \nwhat shall be said of those who will take Cleinias from \nhis entangling questions to drown him in the sea, in order \nto escape a secondary meaning to ^a-ziZco ? \n\nIf usage like this does not prove an absolute departure \nfrom water mersion, both in fact and in figure, what can \nprove it ? \n\nTo baptism, thus exhibited, there is but one idea to be \nattached ; it is that of bewilderment. And this case shows \nthe greatness of the error, when a figure is attempted, in \nbringing water envelopment, or any specific influence flow- \ning from it, into the foreground of the picture. What has \n" bewilderment" to do with immersion in water or with \nsuffocation? Understood to express, generally, controlling \ninfluence, it has a facile adaptation to any case, of what- \never nature, marked by such influence. One bewildered \nby questions, or drunk with wine, is, equally, a baptized \nman. They are brought into new conditions of being. \n\nTO MAKE DRUXK. \n\n10. "You would not have seen a shield, or a helmet, or \na long pike ; but soldiers mersing with bowls and cups \nand flagons, along the whole way, pledged one another out \nof large wine-jars and mixing vessels." \n\n" El.ozq o\' \xc2\xabv ou ~il7r t v, ou xpdvoq^ ou GapiGeav a)JA ipiakai^ xai \n{jutoIs, xou OypczAetotq -apa ttjv 6ddv a-arrav ol ffrparidizat (3aiCTi\xc2\xa3ovTeZj \nt/. TziOwv ftsydAaw xai xparrjpoDv dXAjjAocs jcpoimvov." Plutarch. \n\nThe historian is speaking of the riotous march of Alex- \nander\'s army, through a region of abundance, after the \nperils and sufferings of the homeward march from their \nEastern conquests. \n\n" The soldiers along the whole way dipping with cups \nand horns and goblets, from great wine-jars and mixing- \nbowls, were drinking to one another" (Conant). \n\nDr. Conant mentions a doubt expressed by Du Soul as \n\n\n\n336 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nto the correctness of the reading, fiaxviZovreq, on the ground \nof its construction with h. rdOwv. He thinks, however, that \nthe difficulty is obviated by the suggestion of Coray, " a \npart of the action is put for the whole, as one must dip \nthe vessel in order to fill it." \n\nThe difficulty arises from, and the explanation proceeds \non the assumption, that the word signifies to dip; which \nis a mistake. It is quite possible that the cups, used for \ndrinking, were filled by being dipped into the wine; but \nPlutarch says nothing about the manner in which they \nwere filled. "We must not confound /fajrr&oi with /Sd-\xe2\x84\xa2. \n\nIn the edition of Plutarch, before me, there is a comma \nafter tSa-r^ovTss; showing that, in the judgment of the editor, \nthere was no immediate logical or grammatical connection \nbetween that word and l* rUOwv. According to the punctua- \ntion of this edition, and without changing the Greek order, \nit would read, "bat with bowls and cups and flagons, along \nthe whole way the soldiers mersing, out of large wine-jars \nand mixing-vessels, drank to one another ; " or, the soldiers \ndrank to one another, out of large wine-jars and mixing- \nvessels, with bowls and cups and flagons, along the whole \nway, mersing (making drunk one another). Barrio, in the \nsense to make drunk, is entirely familiar to Plutarch. \nThe translation, " dipping," is entirely without authority \nfrom use, as has been shown; and as is confirmed by this \nconstruction so impracticable on that view. Yet Dr. \nPuller translates \xe2\x80\x94 "dipping with cups .... out of large \ncasks; " adding, "dipping wine out of casks is here called \nbaptizing out of casks and urns." Bapting out of casks \n(although this is not said), might be expounded, but " bap- \ntizing out of casks" does not admit of exposition. Be- \nsides, Dr. Fuller seems to be entirely oblivious, that he \nhad before, right squarely, turned his back on dipping as \na sense beyond defence. At the sea-coast baptism the \nDoctor separated himself from the defeated dippers, and \nraised a banner for himself, exclaiming\xe2\x80\x94" My position is \nthat baptize means immerse." What has become of that \nposition in this "dipping out of casks, called baptizing (im- \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY WINE. 337 \n\nmersing?) out of casks"? Oh! this slipping one word \ninto the place of another to meet an exigency ! Look at \nthis translation, by dipping, to escape an immersion, and, \nthen, at the following statements, made, in triumph, to \nescape from, impossible, dipping: "Every candid reader \nwill, I think, grant that I have ascertained the meaning \nof Baptizo. It signifies to immerse, and has no other mean- \ning" (n. 251). " To any man it ought to be enough that \nI have proved the only meaning of Baptizo to be immerse" \n(p. 58). Well ; and if immerse has been proved against dip- \nping, what about " dipping out of casks" "called baptiz- \ning"? The Doctor has two strings to his bow. Politi- \ncians have a word,. " gerrymandering," to denote all \nmanner of crookednesses. The full power of this word \nwill be taxed to express the ins and outs of Baptist writers \nin jotting down the " one only meaning of pa-miXa through \nall Greek literature." \n\n^Vhen Plutarch uses this Greek word, in connection \nwith the drunken rout described, he undoubtedly uses it, \nas he does elsewhere, to express the controlling influence \nof the wine, which was flowing like water. \n\n\n\n11. " The nobleman being sober, as you see, and pre- \npared, sets upon us debauched and mersed from yester- \nday. Plutarch. \n\nThere is an express contrast made between one in a \nstate of sobriety and others in a state of inebriety. Drunk- \nenness presents various stages and phases. It is to its later \ndevelopments that reference is, here, made. \n\nHow dipping into water is to be made, by figure, to \nillustrate such a passage, I leave for others to explain. \nThe contrast of the sober man and the drunken man; the \nassociation of zpamaXdaa with ^a-z^to; and the reference to \n"3-esterday," would seem to call for some other element \nthan water. \n\nIt is impossible to find resemblance between the action \n\n22 \n\n\n\n338 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\xc2\xbb \n\nof drinking and the action of dipping; for there is none. \nIt is impossible to find resemblance between the mode in \nwhich wine (drinking) exerts its influence, and the mode in \nwhich water (enveloping its object) exerts, its influence; \nfor there is none. It is impossible to find any resemblance \nbetween the nature of wine influence and the nature of water \ninfluence; for there is none. \n\n\n\n12. "A great resource, truly, for a pleasant "day is a \ngood temperament of body un-mersed and unburdened." \n\nPlutarch. \n\nThis remark is based on the benefit consequent upon an \nabstemious mode of living. An unmersed body is one \nnot under the influence of wine. An unburdened body \nis one under the influence of a cheerful spirit. \n\n\n\n13. " Of those slightly intoxicated only the intellect is \ndisturbed; but the body is yet able to serve its impulses, \nbeing, not yet, mersed." Plutarch. \n\n"For of the slightly intoxicated only the intellect is dis- \nturbed; but the body is able to obey its impulses, being \nnot yet overwhelmed" [Conant). \n\nThe word translated " slightly intoxicated," axpodupdxwv, \nmeans, literally and primarily, "slightly armed;" yet Dr. \nConant does not hesitate to translate it as having, also, \nthe direct meaning, "slightly intoxicated." Is there any \nbetter reason for giving a secondary meaning to one of \nthese words rather than to the other? If the former \nmeans " slightly intoxicated," must not the latter, of ne- \ncessity, mean thoroughly intoxicated ? Does Plutarch say, \nthe intellect yields, in the first stages of drunkenness, \nwhile the body yields only in the later stages, when it is \xe2\x80\x94 \ndipped in water f \n\nDr. Conant quotes another passage entirely parallel with \n\n\n\nBAPTISM OF BACCHUS. 339 \n\nthis, but, if possible, still clearer and more conclusive for \nour interpretation ; but which I do not adduce, because \nnot within the limits of those writers to which I, now, \nrestrict myself. The passage is from Philo, and is trans- \nlated thus : " And I know some, who, when they become \nslightly intoxicated" (azpoOwpazes, slightly armed), "before \nthey are completely overwhelmed (baptized), provide by \ncontribution and tickets a carousal for the morrow" \xe2\x80\x94 \n(Conant). \n\nAny one who can accept this as saying \xe2\x80\x94 "when they \nbecome slightly intoxicated, before they become over- \nwhelmed \xe2\x80\x94 as it were dipped in water \xe2\x80\x94 provide for a carousal \nnext day" \xe2\x80\x94 need have no difficulty in rejecting the sec- \nondary meaning of iSd-rw, and accepting the lake dipping \nin frog\'s blood. \n\nAll others will confess that fia-xTi\'u) has acquired the \npower to express, directly, the influence of wine to make \ndrunk. The evidence for this is overwhelming \xe2\x80\x94 not, " as \nit were, dipped in water, or sunk by a weight, or whelmed \nby a torrent" \xe2\x80\x94 but as adequate to exercise an influence \ncontrolling the judgment. \n\n\n\n14. ""Why do they pour in beside the wine sea-water, \nand say that fishermen received an oracle commanding \nthem to merse Bacchus by the sea?" Plutarch. \n\n" Why do they pour sea-water into wine ... to merse \nBacchus in (or at) the sea?" {Conant). A note is appended, \nin which is quoted the statement \xe2\x80\x94 " To immerse Bacchus \nis nothing else than to temper wine." \n\nHere is a baptism commanded by divine (according to \ntheir notions) authority. Dr. Conant says, it is a literal, \nphysical (such is the caption) baptism. We are, then, \nhappily, out of the land of figures. How was this oracle- \ncommand to baptize Bacchus obeyed? \n\n1. As to Bacchus. We learn that Bacchus has no per- \n\n\n\n340 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nsonality, but only stands as representative far wine. Well, \nthen, the command is to baptize wine. How is this done ? \n\n2. As to the sea. It is to be done "by the sea." Whether \nthis means locality, only, or directly declares, or indirectly \nsuggests, the means of the baptism, all will admit that there \nis enough of appropriate element at hand for any amount \nof dipping, or any measure of immersion. How was it \nused ? Wine, in a bottle, skin, or cask, is as capable of \nbeing dipped or immersed in the sea, or of being whelmed, \n" in the literal, physical sense," as any other thing. And \nsuch, we are told, is the only mode of literal baptism, and \nto this only one, all figurative baptisms must be procrusted. \nWas such the style of this Bacchus baptism ? \n\n3. As to baptize. Dr. Carson says r I will make the word \nbaptize find me water, enough to dip in, amid a sandy \ndesert. The word need not go far, then, when standing \non the sandy shore of the sea, to find sufficient for every \ndemand. Does it make use of it for " dipping" Bacchus ? \nDoes the fisherman take his wine- vessel, in his boat, out \nfar enough, and honestly dip it, putting in a short distance, \nand, then, promptly recovering it ? Or, as honestly bap- \ntize it by putting it under without regard to a recovery ? \nThe one way is bapting, the other way, unquestionably, is \none mode of baptizing; and if there be "but one mode," \nthen it is the only mode. Is this the fishermen\'s mode \nof baptizing Bacchus ? Plutarch says not. He declares \nthat as "he was ensconced in the goblet they took water \nfrom the sea and poured it over him. " True, they poured \nthe sea-water over him, but pouring is not baptizing; yet, \nif you pour long enough and cover him all over, there will \nbe a baptism " {Fuller). I do not think the pouring was \n" long enough." I rather think that Bacchus would have \nresisted the mode as heretical and un-Greekly. Had it \nbeen persisted in "long enough," I think that he would \nhave overleaped the goblet\'s brim, and utterly refused to \nbe " covered over." In plain English, covering over wine, \n\n\n\nBAPTISM OF BACCnUS. 341 \n\nby pouring water into it, cannot be done. The baptism \nmust be sought in another direction. \n\nDr. Fuller admits, that an altar on which water was \npoured, without being "poured long enough to cover it," \nwas, still, said to be baptized; because it was "drenched." \nWill Dr. Fuller admit that wine is " drenched" by water \npoured into it, although not " poured loug enough to cover \nit" ? Dr. Fuller has progressed from dipping to immers- \ning, and from immersing to pouring long enough to cover, \nand from pouring long enough to cover, to pouring long \nenough to drench; will he take one more step in advance \n(it is all that I care for him to take), and pass on from \n" pouring long enough to drench," to pouring long enough \nto change the quality or condition of an object ? \n\nLet this be granted by Baptist brethren, and the ma- \nterial for controversy on this subject will be exhausted. \n\nDoes the case before us necessitate such acknowledg- \nment ? I think that it does, most unmistakably. \n\n1. It is a fact, that Bacchus (wine) was commanded to \nbe baptized. \n\n2. It is a fact, that under this command water was \npoured into wine. \n\n3. It is a fact, that water thus poured into wine exercises \na controlling influence over it; "tempers it;" changes its \ncharacter; takes away its intoxicating quality; removes it \nout of the class of intoxicating liquids into the class of un- \nintoxicating liquids ; changes its condition. \n\n4. It is a fact that such baptism is in completest har- \nmony with the exposition of the baptism of hot iron by \npouring water on it : it controls its peculiar quality of \nheat; changes its character ; makes it cold; brings it into \na new condition. \n\n5. It is a fact, that such baptism accords, most fully, with \nthe exposition given of drunken baptism by pouring wine \ninto a man; it controls him; changes his character; makes \nhim irrational; removes him out of sobriety into inebriety. \n\n\n\n342 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n6. It is a fact, that Dr. Conant places this among "literal, \nphysical " baptisms. "We are happy to have his high author- \nity for such a truth. It has our very cordial concurrence. \nThere is no dipping, no plunging, no immersing, but there \nis a controlling influence exerted over an object; and that, \nwhether it be by putting water into wine, or wine into a \nman, or water upon hot iron, is true and literal baptism, \nif the usage of classical Greek writers is of any authority. \n\n"Wine made unintoxicating by water poured into it, is \nbaptized wine. \n\nPURIFICATION. \n\n15. " Call the purifying Old Woman, and merse thyself \n(going) to the sea, and remain all day sitting on the \nground." Plutarch. \n\nThis baptism differs from all others which have claimed \nour attention (unless it be the baptism of Bacchus), in that \nit is a religious baptism. The passage constitutes the \ncounsel given to one who had been disturbed, and was \nsupposed to be defiled, by ill dreams. Sea-water is to be \nused for the sake of its purifying influence. \n\n"Plunge yourself into the sea" [Conant). "Baptize \nyourself into the sea \xe2\x80\x94 this baptism, also, must be by im- \nmersion" [Carson). \n\n1. It will be my endeavor to show that neither of the \nspecific forms of action, " plunging into the sea," \xe2\x80\x94 " dip- \nping into the sea," \xe2\x80\x94 is stated, or of necessity required, by \nthe text. \n\n2. To show that, no specific form of action being stated, \nit is wholly beyond our power to know (therefore with \npropriety to affirm) by what form of action this baptism \nwas consummated. \n\n3. To state a possible way in which it may have been \ndone. \n\n1. There is nothing in the passage to indicate the form \nof the act but paizTiZto ; and that word is incompetent to \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY SEA-WATER. 343 \n\nperform any such duty, as has been, abundantly, shown. \nBesides, plunge, given by Conant, and dip, given by Car- \nson (for "baptize means dip, and only dip"), are words \nof essentially different character; and baptize is so far \nfrom expressing cither, that Fuller is compelled, openly, \nto abandon both for the cloudier term \xe2\x80\x94 " im-merse." \n\nIt is a point as settled as anything of the kind can be, \nthat the demand for plunging or dipping rests in the fancy \nof these writers, and not in the Greek word. \n\n" If the specific forms of act claimed are not in the word, \nyet is not a mersion, stripped of specific forms, to be found \nin \'the sea\'?" I answer, no; for Bacchus was baptized \n"by the sea" without mersion by any form in the sea/ \n\n"But does not the phrase pemnZeiv els 0dXa<T<7av, necessarily \nrequire that the object (without giving to it form) should \npass into the sea?" I answer, yes; provided there is an \nimmediate relation between these words. That, however, \nis not necessarily the case in the present instance. \n\nThe person to whom these words are addressed is not \nstanding on the sea-shore. If he were, these words would \ncarry him (in some way not defined) into the sea. But he \nis at a distance from the sea, and, therefore, el- Odlaaaav \nmay be exhausted by a relation established with a verb \nof motion to be supplied. \n\nThat this suggestion is not groundless is evident from \nthe fact, that such a verb of motion is supplied in a French \ntranslation (1599), met with in the Philadelphia Library. \nIt is true that this translation, still, supposed that there \nwas a passing into the sea; but if this phrase be construed \nwith a supplied verb, it is divorced from fta-r^w, and has \nno longer power to interpret that word. \n\nThat such separation should take place may be, farther, \nargued from the unsuitableness of such phraseology to \nexpress the use of sea-water for purification. It is such \nlanguage as is, elsewhere, used for drowning, and unless \ndeliverance come from some other quarter than the phrase \nitself, drowning is inevitable. I do not say that every \nbaptized man must become a drowned man; but I do say \n\n\n\n344 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthat fia--i%a) never did, and never will take any man out of \nthe water ; and a command to baptize a man in the sea ; \nor to baptize himself into the sea, is a command (inter- \npreted simply by the force of its terms) to drown a man, \nor to commit suicide by drowning, just as surely as that \n2 and 2 make 4, For this reason, I say that the weight \nof evidence is in favor of another, possible, interpretation. \nThe translation may be, "baptize thyself, going to the sea;" \nleaving the way open, after arrival there, for the use of the \nwater, in any way that fancy, or superstition, or religious \nusage may determine. \n\n2. No manner of using the water having been stated, \nand fidizriZtii being absolutely dumb with silence on that \npoint, no human being can throw one ray of certain light \non the mode of practice on this, or on any other occa- \nsion, characterized, only, by this single word. This truth \nbecomes emphasized when, as here, there is no demand for \neven a mersecl, physical, condition; much less for a definite \nact to effect such condition. . \n\nIf the counsel, given to the Dreamer, require mersion \nin the sea, it is obvious that it does so, not as an end, but \nas a means, a means to purification ; but unless sea-water \ncannot purify except mersed objects (which we know is \nnot true), then, so far as the attainment of this end, we \nare not shut up to a mersion in the sea. And the way for \nthe manner of use opens wider still. \n\nIt is important to keep in remembrance that this was a \ncase of religious defilement; and that the point to be \nsecured was, to bring the man out of this condition of defile- \nment into a condition of purity. ISTow, whatever will accom- \nplish this will render him a baptized man, according to \nthe principle, "whatever is capable of changing the condi- \ntion, character, and relations of its object, is capable of \nbaptizing that object." And, here, allow me to trespass, \nonce more, by a reference to a writer outside of the classic \ncircle. In the Stromata, iii, 18, \xc2\xa3x auycppoab^q efc Tzop^tav \nfiaxziZouai \xe2\x80\x94 doytiaz&ovTss, we have a baptism out of one condi- \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY SEA-WATER. 345 \n\ntion into another, " out of purity into impurity,\'\'\' and the \nbaptism is effected by " licentious teaching." This is the \nmost perfect confirmation of the principle deduced from \nthe classics \xe2\x80\x94 Whatever exercises a controlling influence over its \nobject, baptizes that object, by transferring it from one state or \ncondition to another. If sea- water has a controlling influence \nover snperstitiously induced defilement, then, in whatever \nway such water may be used (securing the development of \nsuch influence), it baptizes, taking out of defilement and \nputting into purity, with all its rights and privileges, \nwhether by sprinkling or otherwise. \n\n3. This sea-water may have been used by pouring, by \nsprinkling, by washing the hands, or in any other way in \nwhich it was popularly imagined, or religiously required, \nto secure purification. The word /2a7rrt\'f> places, absolutely, \nno limits to the case. If it was supposed that the virtues \nof sea-water were secured by drinking, then such mode of \nuse would be just as legitimate a mode of baptism as any \nother. It would control the condition. The Eev. E. S. \nFullerton, missionary to Hiudostan, says: " Upon this the \ndying man is placed, and pieces of gold and silver and \ncoral, together with some Ganges icater and a tulsi leaf, were \nplaced in his mouth. The tulsi is a plant much worship- \nped by the Hindoos. All this is done by icay of purifying \nthe man and preparing him for death." IS r ow, I do not say, \nas a matter of fact, that Plutarch\'s dreamer did take sea- \nwater and "put it into his mouth" for purification; but I \ndo say, that if the purifying influence of sea-water was \nsupposed to be thus developed, then, Greek usage would \nsay that such a man was a baptized man. And whether, in \nthis passage or not, we should read, "purify thyself, going \nto the sea," there is nothing in classic usage to prevent \n(Sa-ri^co meaning to purify by the sprinkling or drinking sea- \nwater, any more than to mean to intoxicate by drinking \nwine. Palinurua was baptized into sleep by sprinkling \nhis temples with Lethean dew. \xe2\x80\x94 JEneid, v, 855. \n\nIf this dreamer, having gone to the sea, had neither \n\n\n\n346 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nplunged, nor clipped, nor sprinkled, nor drank its waters, \nnor, as Dr. Fuller suggests, " laid down upon the shore \nand let its billows roll over him," hut had merely gone \nthrough the "mud-smearing" process of lustration, and \nw T as, thus, supposed to he free from defilement; Greek \nusage would give fullest sanction to his being called a \nbaptized man. \nIf classic Greek pronounces that man who is in a condi- \n\nI Hon of drunkenness to be a baptized man \xe2\x80\x94 or, in a condi- \n\n\' Hon of indebtedness, to be a baptized man \xe2\x80\x94 or, in a con- \ndition of intellectual imbecility, to be a baptized man \xe2\x80\x94 \nor, in a condition of obloquy, to be a baptized man \xe2\x80\x94 or, \nin a condition of grief, anger, or vehement desire, to be a \nbaptized man \xe2\x80\x94 or in a condition of profound stupor, to be \na baptized man \xe2\x80\x94 or, in a condition of suffering from mis- \nfortune, or from oppressive taxes, to be a baptized man \xe2\x80\x94 \nor, in a condition of mental perplexity, to be a baptized \n\n1 man \xe2\x80\x94 or, in a condition of disease, and under the influence \nof magical arts, to be a baptized man, \xe2\x80\x94 then, I say (although \nno instance may be found, either in the case before us, or \nin any other case " through all Greek literature," where \na man restored by any competent influence to religious \npurity is said to be a baptized man, still), any one who \n\ni chooses thus to apply the term (and to associate it with \nsprinkling as the act), will have, in so doing, the unani- \nmous support of every classic Greek writer through a \nthousand years. \n\nTake, for example, the following: "01 iv AlyoTznt) tspets \n\ny I iauzouq izspippaivoucnv ou Ttavri vdart, aA/\' Ixslvoj l~ ob 7Z\xc2\xa37tC(TTsuxa(nv 6zt \n\napa xai \'Iftig itzizmxw"* " The priests in Egypt besprinkle \nthemselves, not with any water, but with that of which \nthey believe that Isis drank." \xe2\x80\x94 Plutarch de Isid. et Osir., cap. \n89. The term baptism is not applied to this transaction; \nbut I affirm, that a state of complete \'purification induced by \nthe sprinkling of Ibis water, is as legitimate and true a \nbaptism, interpreted by classic Greek, as would be a state \n\n* I follow Matthsei ; Exp. Bapt, p. 338. I have not found this precise \nlanguage. \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY TEACHING. 347 \n\nof complete covering of their bodies by their being sunk \nto the bottom of the Xilc. The baptisms differ in their \nnature; but as to their legitimacy, under the severest in- \nterpretation, the former is as complete as the latter. \n\nSprinkling demands, not as of grace, but as of absolute \nright, the acknowledgment of its power to baptize. \n\n\n\nA CLASS OF PEKSONS\xe2\x80\x94 THOKOUGHLY IMBUED. \n\nOotid xai ij[i\xc2\xa3t<; napa^ajcriarai. So, also, we are Parabaptists \n(spuriously mersed). Akrian, ii, 9. \n\nAs this passage has some special interest and import- \nance, I will give it more fully : \n\nTo -dOoc too ftzfia/jL/iivou xai ypyjfiivou tots xa\\ eart rw ovti xai xaXelrat \n^Iooddioq. ootid xa\\ r^aliT ~apa(3a-TiffTac, Xoyip /xsv \'Iooddiot, spyut S\'uXAotc, \ndaofx-aOziq r.poq tov Xoyov. fiazpav d-d too yp^a&ai tootolt a Xiyo/isv \nly 6\'.$ wq etdoTST duTa f-aipo/xsOa. \n\nThe caption to the chapter from which this extract is \nmade is as follows : \n\n" When we are unable to fulfil what the character of a \nman promises, we assume tjiat of a philosopher." His \ntheme is Character \xe2\x80\x94 True Manhood \xe2\x80\x94 False Assumption. \n\nThe translation and remarks of Prof. Stuart have been \nalready given in connection with that part of the passage \nwhich relates to /3a-rw. For convenience, I repeat what \nrelates to the point before us : " "Where we see any one \nacting with both parties, we are wont to say : lie is no \nJew, but plays the hypocrite. But when he takes on him \nthe state and feelings of one who is washed or baptized, \nand has attached himself to the sect, then he is in truth \nand is called a Jew. But we are TcapafiaieTttrrat, transgressors \nas to our baptism, or falsely baptized, if we are like a Jew \nin pretence and something else in reality." \n\nAnother translation: " But when he assumes the sen- \ntiments of one who hath been baptized and circumcised, \nthen he both really is, and is called a Jew. Thus we, fal- \nsifying our profession, are Jews in name, but in reality \n\n\n\n348 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nare something else. Our sentiments are inconsistent with \nour discourse ; far from practising what we teach, and we \npride ourselves in the knowledge of. Thus, while we are \nunable to fulfil what the character of a man promises, we \nassume, besides, so vast a weight as that of a philosopher. \nAs if a person, incapable of lifting ten pounds, should \nendeavor to heave the same stone with Ajax." \xe2\x80\x94 Elizabeth \nCarter. London, 1758. " Parabaptistse sumus, et non le- \ngitime tincti." \xe2\x80\x94 Politiani, Lugduni, 1600. "When speaking, \nheretofore, of il rd izdQuq rod fis.fiaiLijhov" I remarked that I had \nnot found any writer who brought the secondary meaning \nof iSaTzra) to bear upon the passage. Since then, I am happy \nto say, I have met with one who does. In Epicteii, $>c, \nLondon, 1670, H. Wolfe, we have this translation : " Cum \nautem afFectum Hid disciplind imbuli sectamque professi ad- \nhibuerit, turn revera Judaius et est et nominator. " \n\nAll idea of any reference to Christian baptism, or Jewish \nbaptism, or to the rite of circumcision, must, I think, be \nexcluded, as incongruous, from the passage. I would read \nit thus : " When we see any one, now on one side, now on \nthe other, we are used to say, he is not a Jew but a pre- \ntender. But when he adopts- the sympathies of one imbued \nand convinced, then he is both in reality and is called a \nJew. So, also, we are Parabaptists \xe2\x80\x94 mis-mersed \xe2\x80\x94 Jews in \nword, but something else in fact, un-sympathizing in heart \nwith the utterances of our lips." (See Rom. 2 : 28, 29.) \n\n1. The scope of a passage must largely control the in- \nterpretation of its parts. The passage has an exclusive \nregard to man\'s nature, and to genuine and spurious char- \nacter. There is a severe exposure of the inconsistency \nexhibited between profession and practice. It is impossi- \nble, under these circumstances, that the elements of a \nprofession should be made the chosen exponents of char- \nacter. But this is done if a ritual baptism and a ritual \ncircumcision are spoken of. Outward rites do not confer \ninward character. To adopt the character or sympathies \nof one ritually baptized, &c, is to adopt a nullity. \n\n\n\nBAPTISM BY TEACHING. 349 \n\n2. The phrase ps{3aftfi\xc2\xa3vou xai ypypL&ou may be interpreted \nin completest harmony with the scope of the passage. \nThis has been, already, shown, and need not be repeated. \nTo adopt " the sympathies of one imbued and convinced," \nis to adopt a real, and not a merely ritual character. \n\n3. Uapapo-7>.<j7a\\ is capable of a like harmonious inter- \npretation. Nothing is more unquestionable than that pro- \nfound influence belongs to /JaTrr&w, and is inseparable from \nall its forms. The form before us is met with, now, for \nthe first time. It may occur, elsewhere, in classical writ- \nings; but, if so, I am not aware of it. In this infrequent \noccurrence, as well as in construction, it resembles 6t fid-rat. \nThe resemblance does not stop here. They both refer to \nclasses of persons marked by decided character; /?\xc2\xab-njc, \nthrough dyeing; fta-Ticrr^, through mersion. The former \ndrops the clement of color; the latter drops the form of \nintusposition. Parabaptist is very clearly expounded as \none whose character is traceable no deeper than the utter- \nances of the lip;, while a Baptist, by implication, is one \nwhose utterances are from the heart, or, as Antoninus \nsays, " imbued with honesty to the bottom" A ritual water \ndipping is utterly out of place. c /Wnjs was one tinc- \ntured with all that is vile; 6 fia-zidrr^ is one thoroughly \npenetrated with the elements of character, honestly ex- \nhibited, whether good or bad. \n\n\\Ve have, thus, in the progress of our classical inquiries, \nbeen brought face to face with the Jav, interpreters think \nwith Jewish baptism. \n\nThe outer confine of the limits assigned to ourselves has \nbeen reached. \n\nSacred Baptism can have no possible influence over \nClassic Baptism; whatever influence the latter may have \nover the former. Every rational consideration demands \nthat Classic Baptism should be discussed first in order, and \nbe determined without any disturbing influence. \n\nIn an attempt to do this, the materials within my reach \nhave, now, become exhausted. And here Ave rest. \n\n\n\n350 \n\n\n\nCLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\n\n\nGENEEAL KESULTS. \n\n\n\nIn concluding this inquiry, and in gathering up results \nconnected with it, it may be remarked : \n\n1. Certain old and long-cherished errors have been \nabandoned. \n\n(1.) That, flaxTa) and /5a~rc\'!> are absolute equivalents, is an \nerror maintained through two centuries of controversy, \nbut, at length, abandoned by all. \n\n(2.) That, pd-T<i> does not mean to dye, is an error, now, \nleft without a defender. It is instructive to remember \nthat all cases of dyeing were once, controversially, treated \nas cases of figure, in which dipping was always present in \nfact or in imagination. \n\n(3.) That, i3a7tTtZ(o means to dip repeatedly, is an error \nthoroughly exploded. Lexicons still give this meaning; \nbut lexicographers must take a great deal on trust, or on \na necessarily imperfect examination. Thoroughly devel- \noped usage is supreme. \n\n2. Other errors remain to be corrected. \n\n(1.) That, pdTZTw, primary, is sternly adherent to the modality \nof dipping, through all its usage, is an error to be corrected. \nWhy not accept to moisten, to wet, to wash, without mo- \ndality, as well as to dye? These are the natural out- \ngrowths of dip, as are to color, to stain, to gild, to glaze, \nto temper, to tincture, the legitimate language offspring \nof dye. \n\n(2.) That, paTtriZu) is but a reappearance of fidnTio "in a \nlittle longer coat," is an error. That any language should \ngive birth to a word which was but a bald repetition of one \nalready in existence, is a marvel which may be believed \nwhen proved. Besides, when the relationship between \n\n\n\nGENERAL RESULTS. 351 \n\nthese words was settled, it was affirmed that fidbma had but \none, and that a modal, meaning; this is, now, abandoned, \nand an additional meaning, without modality, is admitted; \nsurely, in view of so great a ehange, the relationship be- \ntween these words calls for a review. \n\n(3.) That, Ja-r^co expresses a definite act of any Unci, is \nan error needing correction. The current of controversy \nset toward the proof or disproof of certain acts, \xe2\x80\x94 to \ndip, to plunge, on the one side; to sprinkle, to pour, on the \nother. The controversy has proved to be both unsatis- \nfactory and interminable. It would, still, continue to be \nso, if prolonged through three thousand years instead of \nthree hundred. The idea that any form of act is justly \ninvolved in the controversy, is but a phantom of the imag- \nination. There is no form of act inherent in ( 5a^:!>. It \nclaims the agency of a band of servitors whose name is \nlegion. \n\n(4.) That, any word expressive of condition can be self-limited, \nas to the form of the act effecting such condition, is an error. \n\nBd-rcD, secondary, demands for its object a dyed condition. It \nhas no form of act of its own. It asks for no specific act. It \naccepts and cordially affiliates with dip, or drop, or press, \nor smear, or sprinkle, or pour, &c, &c. \n\nBeacriZw demands for its object condition : (1.) A change in \nits present condition, introducing it into a condition of \ncomplete iniusposition. This word, like ,3d-roj (second), has \nno form of act of its own; it asks for none; it accepts \nindifferently of any, of all, competent to meet its demand. \n(2.) It demands a complete change of condition, physical, in- \ntellectual, moral, or ceremonial, without intusposition. And \nto meet this demand it accepts any agency, physical or \nspiritual, competent to the task. Hot iron made to pass \ninto a cold condition ; intoxicating wine made to pass into \nvt\'mg condition; a defiled man made to pass \ninto a purified condition ; a sober man made to pass into \na drunken condition ; a wakeful man made to pass into a \n\n\n\n352 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\ndeeply somnolent condition ; are all exemplifications of bap- \ntism without intusposition in fact, and without any evidence \nof intnsposition by figure. The varied acts and agencies \ninducing these baptisms show that there is no limitation \nin these directions. \n\n(5.) That, $a.Tctl*<a has any responsibility for the form of the \nact effecting primary baptism, or for the manner of applying the \nagency securing secondary baptism, is an error. Dr. Carson \nsays, " to dye (fidiecetv) by sprinkling is as legitimate as to \ndye by dipping." Because coloring matter, applied by \nsprinkling, effects a dyed condition, does fidx\xe2\x84\xa2, therefore, \nmean to sprinkle, or has it anything to do with the mode \nof applying the color ? To merse \xe2\x80\x94 pmnlZew \xe2\x80\x94 to place in a \ncondition of intusposition by sprinkling, is as legitimate as to do \nso by sinking; but does ftanri^w, therefore, mean to sprinkle, \nor has it any responsibility for the act by which the intus- \nposition was effected? To merse \xe2\x80\x94 fiaacriUiv \xe2\x80\x94 to bring into a \nnew and completely changed condition, by sprinkling (as, for ex- \nample, bringing an impure man into a state of complete \npurity by sprinkling Ibis water), is as legitimate as any \nother conceivable method; but shall we tear asunder \nfiaTTuZio and its condition, to ally it with the mode of ap- \nplying the water, with which it has nothing to do ? It is \nenough for any word to perform one duty well. When \npa-ri^iD has, with all fidelity, secured appropriate condition \nfor its object, do not impose upon it the alien and im- \npracticable duty of performing, also, the act by which that \ncondition is effected. \n\n3. Usage, the accepted arbiter, has spoken freely, and, \nI think, has been reported faithfully, as teaching \xe2\x80\x94 \n\n(1.) B&ktu), tingo, and dip, are words, which, in their re- \nspective languages, represent, for the most part, the same \nidentical ideas. \n\n(2.) Banri^, mergo, and merse, are words, which, in their \n\n\n\nGENERAL RESULTS. 353 \n\nrespective languages, represent, for the most part, the same \nidentical ideas. \n\n(3.) These two classes of words differ from each other \nessentially. They are not interchanged, nor interchange- \nable ordinarily, much less identical. \n\n(4.) BdizTo) and Ba-ri^co exhibit a perfect parallelism in \ntheir development. \n\n1. Bd-Tw; To DIP. \n\n1. Ba-zc\'CW, TO MERSE. \n\n2. Bd-Tw; To dip into any coloring liquid for the sake of \n\nthe effect; To dye. \n\n2. BaxTiZw) To merse into any liquid for the sake of its \n\ninfluence; To drown. \n\n3. Bd-rw, To affect by the peculiar influence of coloring \n\nmatter (icithout the act of dipping); e. g., to sprinkle \nblood; to squeeze a berry ; to bruise by blows. \n3. BaTzri^w) To affect by any controlling influence (with- \nout the condition of mersion); e. g., to sprinkle poppy- \njuice ; to pour water on hot iron; to drink intoxicat- \ning liquor. \n\nThe perfect parallelism of development thus exhibited, \nin these two words, goes far to show that the true inter- \npretation of each has been secured. \n\n(5.) Baptism is a myriad-sided word, adjusting itself to \nthe most diverse cases. \n\nAgamemnon was baptized; Bacchus was baptized; \nCupid was baptized; Cleinias was baptized; Alexander \nwas baptized; Panthia was baptized; Otho was baptized; \nCharicles was baptized ; and a host of others were bap- \ntized, each differing from the other in the nature or the \nmode of their baptism, or both. \n\nA blind man could more readily select any demanded \ncolor from the spectrum, or a child could more readily \n\n23 \n\n\n\n354 CLASSIC BAPTISM. \n\nthread the Cretan labyrinth, than could " the seven wise \nmen of Greece " declare the nature, or mode, of any given \nbaptism by the naked help of j3a7zz^w. \n\n(6.) The master-key to the interpretation of j3anr^a) is \ncondition, \xe2\x80\x94 condition characterized by completeness, with \nor without physical envelopment. \n\nCONCLUSION. \nSuch are the results reached in an attempt to determine, \nfrom usage, the meaning of ^anriZo), and the nature of \nClassic Baptism. No claim is made for absolute truth. \nApologetic material is not lacking to extenuate the want \nof greater perfectness; but I care not to offer it. In the \nlack of service on the part of those more competent, I have \ndone what I could. The method and the issue are cheer- \nfully and deferentially submitted to all competent judges. \nApproval of every conception and definition I do not look \nfor; a clear verdict of substantial truth, I do venture to \nexpect. If in this expectation I shall not be disappointed, \nit is my purpose to pursue the inquiry "on this line" in \nrelation to Jewish and Christian baptisms. But "one \nthing at a time" is a good rule. Under it, let all inter- \nested seek to give an answer, that shall be final, to the \nquestion, What is Classic Baptism? \n\nOver against the Baptist answers : \n\n1. Baptizing is dipping and dipping is baptizing. \n\nBaptist Confession of Faith. \n\n2. To dip and nothing but dip through all Greek literature. \n\nAlexander Carson, LL.D., Baptist Board of Publication. \n\n3. To immerse, immerge, submerge, to dip, to plunge, to im- \n\nbathe, to whelm. T. J. Conant, D.D., Baptist Bible Union. \n\nI would place this answer : \n\nWhatever is capable of thoroughly changing the \ncharacter, state, or condition of any object, is capable \nof baptizing that object ; and by such change of char- \nacter, state, or condition does, in fact, baptize it. \n\n\n\nWill soon be Ready for Publication. \n\n\n\nJUDAIC BAPTISM \n\nJEWISH WRITERS. \n\nJOSEPHUS. PHILO. \n\n\n\nJEWISH SCRIPTURES. \n\nPassages of Scripture in the Old Testament which are interpreted \nby Patristic Writers as expressive of Baptism. \n\n1. Baptism by the Flaming Sword \xe2\x80\x94 Genesis 3 : 24 \xe2\x80\x94 Ambrose. \n\n2. Baptism by the Deluge \xe2\x80\x94 Genesis 7 : 18 \xe2\x80\x94 Teetullian, Cyprian. \n\n3. Baptism by the Cloud and by the Sea \xe2\x80\x94 Exodus 14 : 31 \xe2\x80\x94 Basilm. \n\n4. Baptism by Wood \xe2\x80\x94 Exodus 15 : 25 \xe2\x80\x94 Ambrose. \n\n5. Baptism by Washing Hands and Foot \xe2\x80\x94 Exodus 40:31 \xe2\x80\x94 Cyril. \nG. Baptism by Sprinkling \xe2\x80\x94 Leviticus 14 : 7 \xe2\x80\x94 Ambrose. \n\n7. Baptism by Washing \xe2\x80\x94 Leviticus 15 : 5 \xe2\x80\x94 Chrysostom, Clement. \n\n8. Baptism by the Jordan \xe2\x80\x94 Joshua 3 : 17 \xe2\x80\x94 Origen. \n\n9. Baptism by Circumoision \xe2\x80\x94 Joshua 5: 3 \xe2\x80\x94 Justin Martyr, Gregory. \n\n10. Baptism by Pouring Water \xe2\x80\x94 I Kings 18 : 33 \xe2\x80\x94 Origen, Basil. \n\n11. Baptism by Crossing the Jordan \xe2\x80\x94 II Kings 2 : 8 \xe2\x80\x94 Origen, Cyril. \n\n12. Baptism by Washing \xe2\x80\x94 II Kings 5: 14 \xe2\x80\x94 Skptuagint. \n\n13. Baptism by Weight of Sins \xe2\x80\x94 77 Kings 6 : 5 \xe2\x80\x94 Justin Martyr. \n\n14. Baptism by Corruption \xe2\x80\x94 Job 9 : 30 \xe2\x80\x94 Aquila. \n\n15. Baptism by Sprinkling and Washing \xe2\x80\x94 Psalm 51 : 7\xe2\x80\x94 Ambrose, Cyril. \n\n16. Baptism by Trouble\xe2\x80\x94 Psalm G9 : 2 \xe2\x80\x94 Symmachus. \n\n17. Baptism in Sincerity by True Faith \xe2\x80\x94 Canticles 5 : 12 \xe2\x80\x94 Ambrose. \n\n18. Baptism by Repentance \xe2\x80\x94 Isaiah 1 : 16 \xe2\x80\x94 Justin Martyr, Jerome. \n\n19. Baptism by Water, by the Spirit, and by Fire \xe2\x80\x94 Isaiah 4 : 4 \xe2\x80\x94 Basil. \n\n20. Baptism by a Coal of Fire \xe2\x80\x94 Isaiah G : 7 \xe2\x80\x94 Ambrose. \n\n21. Baptism by Iniquity \xe2\x80\x94 Isaiah 21 : 4 \xe2\x80\x94 Septuagint. \n\n22. Baptism by Washing \xe2\x80\x94 Ezckiel 16 : 4 \xe2\x80\x94 Jerome. \n\n23. Baptism by Effusion and Sprinkling \xe2\x80\x94 Ezckiel 36 : 25 \xe2\x80\x94 Jerome. \n\n\n\nAPOCRYPHA. \n\nJudith 12 : 7. Sirach 31 : 30. \n\n\n\nNEW TESTAMENT. \n\nMark 7: 4,8. Lithe 11 : 88. Hebrews 9 : 10. \n\n\n\nALSO, \n\n\n\nJOHANNIC BAPTISM \n\n\n\nWHAT IS ITS TRUE CHARACTER? \n\n\n\ni. \n\nWHAT WAS JOHN\'S KNOWLEDGE AS TO THE USAGM \nOF BAimZQ ? \n\n1. AS TO FIGURATIVE USE. \n\n2. AS TO LITERAL USE. \n\nII. \n\nTHE COMMISSION OF JOHN TO BAPTIZE, \n\nIII. \n\nTHE NATURE OF JOHN\'S BAPTISM. \n\n1. AS SHOWN BY VARIOUS STATEMENTS AND ALLUSIONS. \n\n2. AS SHOWN BY THE BAPTISM PREACHED. \n\n3. AS SHOWN BY THE BAPTISM RITUALLY ADMINISTERED. \n\nIY. \n\nTHE PLACES OF JOHN\'S BAPTISM. \n\nY. \nTHE BAPTISM OF THE LORD JESUS. \n\nYI. \nTHE BAPTISM OF JOHN HIMSELF. \n\n1. By touching the person of the Lord Jesus. \n\n2. By his own blood as a martyr. \n\nYII. \n\nPHILOLOGICAL AND GRAMMATICAL EXAMINATION \nOF R ULING PASSAGES. \n\n\n\n\n0\' c-" \n\n\n\n\n\'*,.. d? \n\n\n\nV > Si" \n\n\n\n\n\n\nO * o \xc2\xbb x \xe2\x96\xa0* \\0 \n\n\n\n\n.0 \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n"% / \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n-xS \' Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. \n\nCc. A- Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide \n\n\n\nueaciaiTiea usiny me duumvcc^i ^i^ \nV \\V -v r{Y \'".-. ^ c,* Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide \n\n<* * ! Treatment Date: Sept. 2005 \n\n\\> -A \n\n\n\n***% \n\n\n\n\n\n\n< A O \n\n\n\n^ % c .: PreservationTechnologies \n\n\n\nA WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION \n\n1 1 1 Thomson Park Drive \nCranberry Township. PA 16066 \n(724)779-2111 \n\n\n\n\xc2\xb0 a f \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2% \n\n\n\n\n\\ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n* v^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nIV- "^ v* x \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2\xc2\xa3. \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nV^\' \n\n\n\n\n\n\nV \n\n\n\n\n\n\nrj* CI > \n\n\n\n*\xc2\xab \n\n\n\n^ \'/ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n^ v \'*. \n\n\n\n\n\n\nar \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n- \n\n\n\n^^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\' \n\n\n\n.V \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nx \'\xe2\x80\xa2*> ,-fc\xc2\xab N \n\n\n\n\n\n\n^ ^ \n\n\n\n\\ ; *" <\xe2\x80\xa2 , \n\n\n\n\n\n\n^ \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n** , . \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2 V \n\n\n\n*" \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n1 " t, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\nO0 v \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n- \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\ni \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n" \xc2\xab \n\n\n\n\xe2\x80\xa2*, \n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n'