I 
 
BAPTISM, 
 
 "VV I T H REFERENCE TO 
 
 IMPORT AND MODES, 
 
 EDWARD BEECHER, D.D, 
 
 NEW YORK: 
 JOHN WILEY, 161 BROADWAY 
 
 AND 13 PATERNOSTER ROW, LONDON, 
 
 1849. 
 
Entered, according to Act of Congress, in the 3'ear 1848, by 
 
 REV. EDWARD BEECHER, D.D., 
 
 in the Clerk's Office of the District Court of the Southern District of New York. 
 
 R. CRAlUHKAD, PRINTKR &, BTEREOTYrKK, 
 112 FULTON STRKET. 
 
PREFACE. 
 
 It is a very striking fact, and one which I do not remember 
 ever to have seen properly noticed, if noticed at all, that the con- 
 troversy on the import of the word /Ha-Trrl^w is, in its origin, en- 
 tirely modern. In Matthige's history of Greek Literature we find 
 an account of the authors who have written in Greek, beginning 
 with Homer, lOOO B. C, and ending with Constantinus Harme- 
 nopulus, 1380 A. D. This history includes all the poets, orators, 
 historians, philosophers, physicians, mathematicians, geographers, 
 rhetoricians, and philologists of Greece, also the Greek Fathers 
 of the Christian Church, and the Byzantine writers of the middle 
 ages. For more than two thousand years, then, the Greek 
 language was written ; though with diminished purity and classic 
 elegance, by the Patristic and Byzantine writers. And yet 
 during this long period, never was the position assumed by any 
 writer of Greek, concerning the import of the word (Safri^ojy 
 which is now assumed by Dr. Carson and other Baptist writers, 
 i. e. that (Baiirri^oj means exclusively to immerse. 
 
 Nor was this because the attention of writers of Greek was 
 not turned to the subject. The question came up whether affu- 
 sion on a bed, in the case of sick persons, should be regarded as 
 valid baptism. It was decided that it should, and no one ever 
 made the reply, Christ commanded us to immerse, the word 
 (Sa'ffTi^o means only to immerse, and you cannot immerse by 
 sprinkling or affusion on a bed. The reason is plain. So long 
 as the Greek was a living spoken language, no one dared to take 
 this ground. 
 
IV PREFACE. 
 
 Nor is this all ; lexicons and vocabularies were made by 
 Suidas, Zonaras, Hesychius, and others, exhibiting sometimes 
 the classical, at others, the ecclesiastical uses of the word, and 
 yet, in no instance, taking the modern Baptist ground, not to say 
 that some directly oppose it. 
 
 Besides all this, numerous treatises on Baptism were written in 
 Greek, and allusions to it are frequent in all the Greek Fathers. 
 Moreover, commentaries were written on both the Old Testament 
 and the New, containing constant allusions to baptism, especially 
 in commenting on the Mosaic ritual, and on the predictions of 
 the great purification to be effected by the Messiah, and their 
 fulfilment in the Evangelists ; and yet, in no treatise or commen- 
 tary, is the Baptist ground taken, not to say that it is often and 
 pointedly contradicted. 
 
 It is plain, therefore, that the Baptist position is entirely of 
 modern origin. It has come up since the Greek ceased to be a 
 spoken and written language, and it may be added, that it depends 
 for its continued existence on preventing a revival of a full and 
 general knowledge of the usus loquendi of the ecclesiastical 
 Greek writers. 
 
 In order to a comprehensive view of the origin and peculiari- 
 ties of the present work on baptism, I ask attention to the follow- 
 ing summary of facts. 
 
 The Septuagint, the New Testament, and the Greek Fathers, 
 belong to one system of writers. The writers of the New Testa- 
 ment were affected by the Septuagint, in their style and use of 
 words. The Fathers were affected by both. 
 
 Taking this system as a whole, it is easy to produce proof of 
 the most positive and decisive kind, that (own'rl^u means to purify. 
 Around these central and absolutely irresistible passages, there 
 are others in which there is satisfactory moral evidence, to the 
 
PREFACE. V 
 
 same effect, in various lower degrees of power, although the sense 
 to immerse is not impossible. 
 
 Now it has so happened that the passages in the New Testa- 
 ment, with reference to which this controversy began, are in this 
 second class. They furnish real and satisfactory proof to those 
 qualified to exercise a sound critical judgment, and to feel the 
 various degrees and shades of moral evidence. They have, in 
 fact, led the great body of lexicographers and commentators to 
 decide that (SaifTi^o) has a secondary sense, and does not always 
 mean to immerse. 
 
 My investigations began with passages of this kind. Indeed, I 
 was not aware, when I began, of the existence of the stronger 
 class of passages. 
 
 I therefore stated the laws of probability, and, in the exercise 
 of a critical judgment, came to a result. 
 
 From a slight examination of the language of the Fathers, I 
 came to the same results. These results are contained in Part I., 
 and were published in 1840, and were republished in England, 
 with the decided recommendation of Dr. Henderson. 
 
 Immediately on their appearance. Dr. Carson published his first 
 reply to me, in a pamphlet of 74 pages. 
 
 Meantime, before I had seen this reply, I was continuing my 
 examination of Patristic usages, and also undertook a radical in- 
 vestigation of the celebrated passages in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. 
 ii. 12. 
 
 The results I published in 1841, and these compose Part II. 
 
 After this, I imported a copy of Dr. Carson's reply to me. 
 This led me to make new investigations in the Fathers, the result 
 of which I published in 1843. These compose Part III. 
 
 To these Dr. Carson published a short answer, and soon after 
 died. His work on Baptism, including this answer, and others 
 
VI PREFACE. 
 
 of his controversial writings, were published in London, in a 
 volume of 500 pages, just before his death, and were at length 
 republished in this country. 
 
 To this second reply, and to other parts of his book, I now pub- 
 lish a final answer, which is contained in Part IV. 
 
 No one can fail to notice how entirely the critical judgments of 
 my earlier investigations are sustained, when the whole system to 
 which they belong is unfolded. 
 
 And yet, because the evidence on which these earlier critical 
 judgments rested, did not amount to an impossibility of the sense 
 to immerse. Dr. Carson, and the whole body of the Baptists 
 would have trod them down as nothing. 
 
 The issue of the controversy shows that it is dangerous thus to 
 despise such results of moral evidence, and critical judgment, 
 especially under the bias of organic influences. The greatest 
 questions of life are often decided by similar moral evidence. 
 
 Although, therefore, I have produced passages so strong as to 
 defy any fair answer, yet I still look with great pleasure and in- 
 creasing confidence on the first results of my critical judgments. 
 The capacity of perceiving the various shades of moral evidence 
 which God has given us, was not designed to lead us astray. 
 
 My original articles I have revised, enlarged, and rewritten, as 
 seemed best. But I have not deemed it best to make any radical 
 changes, because there is a historical interest attached to them, in 
 consequence of the extended discussion to which they have given 
 rise. 
 
 So far as I know, this is the first time in which the issue pre- 
 sented in this work has been discussed, in full view of its relations 
 to the usages of that system of writers, by whom the question in 
 controversy must be finally settled. 
 
 Boston, Aug. 27, 1848. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 PART I. 
 
 This portion of the discussion was republished in England, and 
 gave rise to Dr. Carson's first reply. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Import of (Sairri^u. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Introduction. Reasons for engaging anew in the discus- 
 sion, 1 
 
 Division of Christians, and desirableness of unity, . . ib. 
 God's mode of producing unity, ..... 2 
 
 § 1 . Statement of the case, and principles of investigation, 3, 4 
 § 2. Causes of the disregard of these principles, and the 
 false positions to which this disregard has given 
 rise, ......... 5-7 
 
 § 3. Statement of the position to be proved, . . . 7-11 
 Four false positions, . . . . . . . 7, 8 
 
 The true position, ....... 8 
 
 Other uses of [3oLifri^o), . . . . . . 9, 10 
 
 Transition to the sense claimed, . . . . 10,11 
 
 § 4. Doctrine of probabilities, .... 11-18 
 
 Laws of mind and of language favor the transition al- 
 
 leged, 11-13 
 
 Analogous transitions in other words, . . . 13-18 
 
 § 5. Probabilities as to jSwrrri^oj, . . . . 18, 19 
 
 Influence of the conquests of Alexander, . . .19 
 
 § 6. Probabilities from the subject, . . . 19, 20 
 
 Use of the word to describe the work of the Holy Spirit, . 20 
 
Vlll CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 § 7. Philological principles, 20-22 
 
 The true nature of a cumulative argument, ... 22 
 § 8. A question about purifying, .... 22-25 
 
 In Jn. iii. 25, xaSaPK^fhos is a synonyme of fSanfTicfiJ^og, . 22 
 
 Facts of the case, and conclusion, .... 23,24 
 
 § 9. Accordance of this view with the prophecies, and the 
 
 language of the Old Testament, . . . 25,26 
 
 § 10. Baptism of water, and of the Holy Spirit, contrasted 
 
 by John, 26,27 
 
 §11. Baptism of the Holy Spirit, .... 28 
 
 §12. Sacrificial sense of /DaTfTj Jw, . . . 28-31 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The Import of /Sacrr/^w. 
 
 § 13. Mosaic Purifications, 32-37 
 
 Called f^wffTKf ixoi in Heb. ix. 10, in the sense xa^oc^itf/jLoj . 32 
 Scope of the passage, ....*.. ib. 
 
 They relate to persons, ....... ib. 
 
 They are enjoined, ....... ib. 
 
 No immersions of persons are enjoined, . . . 33, 34 
 
 Immersion of persons was not deemed important, . . 35 
 The immersions of things enjoined in the law, not referred 
 
 to here, ........ ib. 
 
 Immersions are not diverse, purifications are, ... 86 
 Purification accords with the Spirit of the passage, . . 37 
 
 § 14 Jewish purifications, ..... 38-40 
 
 8, and in Luke 
 
 38 
 
 . ib. 
 
 . ib. 
 
 39 
 
 . 40 
 
 fBu'jfri^o) means to purify in Mark vii. 4 
 
 xi. 38, ... 
 
 The sense appropriate. 
 The context demands it, 
 Immersion of couches absurd. 
 False principles of Dr. Carson, 
 Statements of Prof. Ripley and Dr. Gill, devoid of force, . ib. 
 § 15. Purification by the ashes of a heifer, . . 40-43 
 
 In Sirach xxxi. 25, /Sacrr/^CAj means to purify, ... 40 
 The preposition a-ro demands this sense, . . .41 
 
42 
 
 ib. 
 43 
 
 ib. 
 
 44 
 
 44-47 
 
 44 
 
 CONTENTS. • IX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 No immersion was enjoined, but washing, and the essence 
 
 of the rite was sprinkling, . . . . 4^^ . 41 
 
 Xou'w means to wash, to cleanse ; Xourrj^sg denotes wash 
 basins for the hands, ..... 
 
 View of Philo, ....... 
 
 § 16. Judith xii. 7, /3a-7rTi^w means to purify, 
 Nature of the case demands it, .... 
 
 Dr. Carson admits that all the lexicographers and commenta 
 
 tors are against him, . . . , . 
 
 § 17. Relations to the system of writers, 
 Current of probability all one way. 
 Baptism of Paul, Acts xxii. 16. Reference of Peter to 
 
 baptism 1 Pet. iii. 21. Language of Josephus . 45,46 
 
 § 18. The Fathers, 47, 48 
 
 Their authority. ......•• 47 
 
 Appealed to merely to decide the usus loquendi of /Sa-n'ri'^w 48 
 § 19. Baptismal Regeneration, .... 48-50 
 
 §20. Denial of water baptism, .... 50,51 
 
 § 21. Patristic usage, 51-54 
 
 In speaking of the rite they often omit the idea immersion. 
 They use (Sam'TKfixog in the sense purification. They 
 often, in describing the rite, use xadai'^w or xa&a^i^Uj to 
 purify, . . . . . . . .52 
 
 PART II. 
 
 This portion of the original discussion was not republished in 
 England, and was written before Dr. Carson's reply to the first 
 part was seen. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The Import of /Sa-Tr^-j'^w. 
 
 Recapitulation of the argument, ..... 55 
 
 § 22. Patristic practice, 55-57 
 
 Bewildering and disturbing influence of patristic prac- 
 tice, 55, 56 
 
X CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Facts as to that practice, 57 
 
 § 23. Pklse inferences, ..... 57-60 
 
 Philological opinions of the Fathers inferred from their 
 
 practice. Opinion of Prof. Stuart, .... 58 
 
 Inference incorrect, ....... 59 
 
 Causes of the prevalence of immersion, ... 59, 60 
 
 § 24. Decisive cases from the Fathers called for, . 60, 61 
 
 § 25. Baptism of blood, in the case of Christ, . 61-63 
 
 Views of the Fathers, Origen, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Gre- 
 gory Naz., Theophylact, John of Damascus, . 62, 63 
 § 26. Baptism of blood in the case of martyrs, . 63-68 
 Strong tendencies to desire martyrdom, .... 63 
 
 Opinion as to its expiatory power, .... 64 
 
 To denote its purifying power /DaTfr/^w was used, . . ib. 
 
 Origen, Chrysostom, Gregory Naz., Augustine, Petilianus, 64-66 
 The Fathers understood Mat. xx. 22, 23, Mark x. 38, 39, 
 
 ify. In this they 
 
 66, 67 
 
 67, 68 
 . 68 
 
 Objection from 
 
 Luke xii. 49, 50, in the sense pur 
 were correct, 
 Causes of modern erroneous view, . 
 Opinions of modern Greeks, . 
 § 27. Principles as to co-existent senses 
 
 2 Kings v. 14, refuted. Different senses of b^to. Opi- 
 nion of Suicer and Fuerstius. Parallel case in /Sa'Trrw 
 supposed, ....... 68, 69 
 
 § 28. Coincident facts, 69-82 
 
 Relation of the rite to the forgiveness of sins, ... 69 
 Words with which (Sairri^u is interchanged, ... 70 
 xuTaSudis is used for immersion, ..... ib. 
 
 When jSa-TTT-KrfjLa is used in this sense an explanatory note 
 
 needed, ........ 71 
 
 General principles hence derived, . . . . 71, 72 
 
 Immersion never defended on philological grounds. Case 
 
 of Cyprian, 72,73 
 
 Baptism of the deluge, and of the Red Sea. Views of 
 
 Augustine, 73,74 
 
 Elias baptizing the wood. Origen's view of it, . . 75 
 Reasons of Christ's baptism given by the Fathers. Not like 
 
 those given by Prof. Chase, ..... ib. 
 Augustine's views, ....... ib. 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 ^: 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Baptism of the Holy Spirit. Gregory Nyss. Augustine, 
 
 Origen, 76 
 
 Opinions of the Fathers on Heb. ix. 10. Athanasius, Theo- 
 
 phylact, Macarius, Tertullian, ... 76, 77 
 
 Baptism of fire, Origen, Jerome, Rufinus, . . 77, 78 
 
 Baptism of tears. Nilus, Gregory Nyss. ... 79 
 
 Application of Old Testament. Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, 
 
 Cyprian, Jerome, ...... 79, 80 
 
 Clinic baptism, ........ 80 
 
 Fitness of the idea purification to be the name of the rite, 
 
 and unfitness of the idea immersion, . . .81 
 
 Immersion used figuratively denotes degradation, and is not 
 
 adapted to describe the work of the Holy Spirit, . 82 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 The Interpretation of Rom. vi. 3, 4, and CoL ii. 12. 
 
 § 29. Importance of a correct interpretation of these pas- 
 sages, 83-85 
 
 Requisites for union among Christians, .... 83 
 
 Influence of these texts to prevent union great, . . 84 
 
 Opinion of critics, ....... ib. 
 
 Confidence of the Baptists in them, .... 84, 85 
 
 § 30. Points at issue. Principles of reasoning. Is the 
 baptism external ? Are the burial and resurrection 
 external ? Principles, ..... 85, 86 
 
 § 31. Position to be proved. Sources of evidence, . 86, 87 
 
 § 32. Argument from the logical exigencies of Rom. 
 
 vi. 3, 4, 
 
 , , 
 
 87-95 
 
 The baptism here spoken of, destroys sin. 
 
 External 
 
 rites 
 
 do not, 
 
 , , 
 
 88-91 
 
 Theory of Prof. Chase, 
 
 , 
 
 . 92 
 
 Theory of Dr. Carson, .... 
 
 , 
 
 . 93 
 
 Remark of Mr. Barnes, 
 
 , 
 
 . 95 
 
 The internal view alone logical, 
 
 . 
 
 . ib. 
 
 § 33. Argument from the usus loquendi 
 
 as to Spiritual 
 
 Death, Burial, &c. 
 
 . 
 
 95-103 
 
 Principles, 
 
 . 
 
 95-97 
 
Xll CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Table of parallel analogies, ...... 98 
 
 Reasons of the usage, . . . . . . 99, 100 
 
 Scripture proof, 101-103 
 
 True interpretation, ...... 103 
 
 § 34. Argument from the congruity of the interpretation 
 
 with the general system of truth, . . . 103-107 
 
 Verisimilitude, what? 103 
 
 Incongruities, ....... 104-106 
 
 § 35. Argument from the moral tendencies and effects of 
 
 each mode of interpretation, .... 107-110 
 
 Tendency of men to avoid self-crucifixion and to fall into 
 
 formalism, . . . . . . . .107 
 
 The external interpretation augments this tendency; the 
 
 internal opposes it, 107, 108 
 
 Appeal to facts, 109,110 
 
 § 36. Objection from authority considered, . , 110-114 
 Appeal to authority here is illogical, ... 110 
 
 There has been a universal pe^i^z'o prmczpi?!, . . 110,111 
 Facts in the New Testament as to internal and external 
 
 baptism, 111,112 
 
 Exposition of 1 Cor. x. 2, and result, . . . 112 
 
 Pernicious influence of external and technical use of the 
 
 word baptism, 112,113 
 
 The language in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, would have 
 been as it is now, had there been no external rite of 
 
 baptism, 113,114 
 
 §37. Apostolic practice considered, . . . 114,115 
 
 It is not binding on us, for the command is only to purify. 
 No mode can be proved to have been universal. The 
 presumption is in favor of liberty and variety, . .114 
 Causes of modern inflexible rigidity, . . . .115 
 
 §38. Final result, 115,116 
 
 Three fundamental points of the discusssion, and the deci- 
 sion on each, ....... 115 
 
 Result of the whole ; as to the mode of purification we may 
 
 enjoy Christian liberty, . . . . . .116 
 
 Unity on the Baptist ground impossible, . . . .116 
 
CONTENTS. ' 
 
 XIU 
 
 PART III. 
 
 FIRST REPLY TO DR. CARSON. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Examination and refutation of Dr. 
 Position. 
 
 Carson's Principles and 
 
 
 . 
 
 117 
 
 , . 
 
 . 117- 
 
 -120 
 
 • 
 
 • 
 
 117 
 118 
 
 . Malcom, 
 
 Baptist 
 
 
 God's providence with reference to the Baptist controversy. 
 
 Two systems in conflict, 
 § 39. Present position of the Baptists, 
 Their power as a denomination, 
 Logical result of their principles. 
 Statements of Prof. Eaton, Mr. Hinton, H. 
 
 American and Foreign Bible Society, J. D. Gotch, and 
 
 others, 119,120 
 
 § 40. Inferences from the opposite system, . . 120-122 
 
 Other denominations defended against the charges of the 
 
 Baptists, 121 
 
 Charges of the Baptists retorted against themselves, . 121,122 
 §41. Translation of the Bible, .... 122,123 
 To transfer words is not to mistranslate, .... 122 
 How the sense of such words can be fixed, . . . 123 
 
 § 42. Commandments of men, .... 123, 124 
 
 The Baptist demand, is merely a commandment of men, . 124 
 § 43. State of the controversy. Dr. Carson's reply, 124-126 
 Vast results depend on one word, ..... 124 
 Baptist opinions of Dr. Carson's reply, .... 125 
 Division of it into rhetoric and logic, .... 126 
 
 § 44. Dr. Carson's rhetoric. Its influence, . . 126-132 
 Appeal for sympathy in his trials, .... 126—128 
 Specimens of rhetoric, ...... 128,129 
 
 Influence, 130-132 
 
 § 45. Dr. Carson's logic. Preliminary remarks, . 132, 133 
 § 46. Dr. Carson's system and canons, . . • 133-143 
 Consists of four parts, ....... 133 
 
 He has labored needlessly to prove what no one disputes, . 134 
 His canon as to beginning a secondary sense of ^uirri^c*), 134, 135 
 
XIV «eONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 His canons of trial to test secondary senses, . . 135-139 
 His final step, 139, 140 
 
 The whole process is based on a begging of the question, 140-143 
 § 47. My principles. How Dr. Carson represents them, 143-145 
 §48. True statement of my principles, . . 145-148 
 
 Five points stated, ...... 145, 146 
 
 True issue between Dr. Carson and me, . . 147, 148 
 
 § 49. Dr. Carson's course, and his objections, . 148-153 
 
 He arrogates to himslf the* philological doctrines of others. 
 
 He does not state nor answer my principles. He is 
 
 obliged to act on my principles. 
 Answer to the case of Columbo bridge 
 § 50. Appeal lo facts, . 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, . 
 Justin Martyr, .... 
 § 51. Dr. Carson's principles subvert themselves, 
 §52. Cases. Clinic Baptism. Purifying agents, 
 Nicephorus, .... 
 Tertullian, Augustine, Isidore, 
 Maximus, Anastasius, . 
 § 53. Other cases. Expiation 
 
 Baptism, 
 
 by sprinkling 
 
 Statement of previous principles as to the sacrificial sense of 
 
 Baitri^^u, 160,161 
 
 Ambrose, 162,163 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria, 163,164 
 
 Tertullian, 165 
 
 Sense of tingo, ........ 166 
 
 Justin Martyr, ib. 
 
 Ambrose, ......... 167 
 
 § 54. Passage from Proclus, .... 168-170 
 
 § 55. Definitions of /Sa-Trn'^w and (SaitrKf^a, by the 
 
 Fathers, 170-174 
 
 Basil, 170 
 
 Hilarius, ......... 171 
 
 Athanasius, ......... 172 
 
 Zonaras and Phavorinus, 172-174 
 
 §56. Proof from the use of prepositions, . . 174,175 
 
 § 57. Argument cumulative, .... 175-177 
 
 148-151 
 
 . 152 
 
 153-156 
 
 153, 154 
 
 155, 156 
 
 156, 157 
 158-160 
 
 . 158 
 . 159 
 . 160 
 called 
 
 160-167 
 
CONTENTS. XV 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Hilarius. Baptism of Constantius and Theodosius. Basil. 
 
 Gregory Nyss. ...... 175, 176 
 
 § 58. Dr. Carson's canons cannot weaken it, . 177-178 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Additional fads, and refutation of Dr. Carson's attack on the 
 Biblical and Patristic argument. 
 
 § 59. Reasons for a further notice of Dr. Carson. His 
 bad spirit not rebuked by the Baptists. Danger of 
 organic corruption, ..... 179-181 
 Eulogies of Dr. Carson and of his reply to me, as unan- 
 swerable, 181, 182 
 
 Dr. Carson the great Baptist champion of the age, . 183, 184 
 Causes of his power as a leader, . . . . .184 
 
 §60. Dr. Carson's remarks on the Patristic argument, 184-187 
 He asserts that the Fathers knew infallibly the sense of 
 
 (Sam'ri^u, . • . . . . . ^184 
 
 And that they always use it in the sense to immerse, with- 
 out exception, . . . . . . .186 
 
 Moral character of this last statement, . . . .188 
 
 § 61. Additional facts in refutation of Dr. Carson, . 187-195 
 Ambrose, Theodoret, . . . . . . .189 
 
 Anastasius, Isaias Abbas, John of Damascus, . . .190 
 Tertullian, Augustine, Cyprian, Hilarius, Theophylact, 
 
 Basil, 191 
 
 Theodoret, Theophylact, Chrysostom, . . . .192 
 
 Anastasius, Ambrose, . . . . . . .195 
 
 Crossness of Dr. Carson's error, ..... ib. 
 
 §62. Other errors of Dr. Carson, . . . 195-197 
 
 § 63. General view of patristic uses of jSa-TfTi^oj, . 197-202 
 § 64. General view applied, .... 202-206 
 
 Photius, Theophylact, 202 
 
 Trine immersion. Balsamon, Gregory Naz. . . . 203 
 
 Chrysostom, 204, 205 
 
 Gregory Nyss. ........ 205 
 
 Use of prepositions, ....... 206 
 
 § 65. Commission to baptize, .... 206, 207 
 
XVI CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 The commission not omitted in Luke and John, though 
 
 not given by the word (Ba-TfTi^u, .... 207 
 
 § 66. Dr. Carson's dissertation on XoJw, . . 207-211 
 
 His effort to settle tlie question, ..... 208 
 
 Reply. Porphyry, Photius, Zonaras, Basil, Nicephorus 
 
 Gregoras, Julius Pollux, Anaxilas, . . . 208, 209 
 Origen, Gregory Naz., Eupolis, Euripides, Strabo, . . 210 
 Force ofkovu, viVrw, and ifXvvu), .... 210, 211 
 § 67. Dr. Carson's attack on the Biblical argument re- 
 pelled, 211-224 
 
 Summary of the argument, ..... 211,212 
 Dr. Carson's whole process illogical, . . . 212, 213 
 
 Vindication of the argument from Jn. iii. 25. Chrysostom, 
 
 Gregory Nyss., Cyril Alexandrinus, Theophylact, 213, 214 
 Vindication of the argament from the Old Testament, 214-217 
 Basil, Eusebius, Origen, Jerome, Cyril Alexandrinus, Theo- 
 
 doret, . .' 215,216 
 
 Baptism of the Holy Spirit, Cyril, Origen, Basil, . 217, 218 
 Dr. Carson's lesson in rhetoric, ..... 219 
 
 Sacrificial purification, . . . . . .219, 220 
 
 Divers baptisms, ....... 220 
 
 Commentary of Theophylact on Jn. iii. 25, . . . 221 
 True translation of the passage, ..... ib. 
 
 Baptism of couches, and baptism by the ashes of a heifer, . 222 
 
 Baptism of Paul, 223 
 
 Baptism of the flood, ....... ib. 
 
 Cyprian, ......... ib. 
 
 § 68. Dr. Carson's reply to the argument from the 
 
 Fathers, 224-229 
 
 False statement of facts, .... . 224 
 
 True character of my argument, .... 225, 226 
 
 " Original nonsense," 227-229 
 
 § 69. Result, 229, 230 
 
 § 70. Conclusion, 230-237 
 
 Position of the Baptists dishonorable to God, and injurious 
 
 alike to themselves and to the church, . . 231-233 
 
 No higher duty than to bring this controversy to a close, . 233 
 To terminate it possible, ...... ib*. 
 
 Obstacles to such a result, ...... 234 
 
CONTENTS. 
 
 XVU 
 PAGE 
 
 *rhe responsibility rests on learned scholars and leading 
 
 minds, ........ 235 
 
 Recommendations of the view advocated by this work, . 236 
 
 PART IV. 
 
 NOTICE OF DR. CARSON S SECOND REPLY 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 Analysis of Dr. Carson's Reply. 
 
 §71. State of the controversy, 
 
 The true issue, . . . . . 
 
 Facts in the case, ..... 
 
 Dr. Carson's course is a confession of defeat, . 
 
 § 72. Philosophy of Dr. Carson's second reply, 
 
 His high reputation in England, Scotland, and Ireland, 
 
 His purpose was to destroy the influence of my argument 
 
 without answering it, 243, 244 
 
 § 73. American Baptist Publication Society, . . 244 
 Have endorsed and republished Dr. Carson's work, . . ib. 
 Eulogies of the work and defence of Dr. Carson's spirit, 244, 245 
 "Attic salt," 245 
 
 238-243 
 . 238 
 
 239-241 
 . 242 
 
 243, 244 
 . 243 
 
 § 74. Motives to reply to Dr. Carson, .... 246 
 It gives an opportunity to review his whole work, and to add 
 
 new facts and arguments, ..... 246 
 
 §75. Outline of Dr. Carson's second reply, . . 247-249 
 § 76. Question concerning principles, . . . 250, 251 
 § 77. Additional exposure of Dr. Carson, . . 251-254 
 § 78. Begging the question, ..... 254 
 
 § 79. My Principles vindicated, . . , . 255-260 
 Dr. Carson agitated and confused, . . . . .261 
 § 80. Argument from prepositions, stated at large, , 261-266 
 Chrysostom, Origen, Basil, Paul, ..... 262 
 Justin Martyr, Athanasius, Gregory Thaumaturgus, . 263 
 
 Acta Passionis Pamphilii, 
 Gregory Nazianz., 
 
 Eusebius, John of Damascus, 
 
 264 
 
XVlll CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Cyril of Jerus.; Clemens Alexandrinus, . . . 265 
 
 Translation of sv, 266 
 
 § 81. Dr. Carson's magnanimity, . . . 266-269 
 
 Imaginary error as to sx, ...... 267 
 
 Constructio Pregnans, 269, 2Tt) 
 
 § 82. Dr. Carson's first alleged mode of solving all my 
 
 quotations from the Fathers, .... 269, 270 
 The theory is false, and insufficient if true, . . . 270 
 § 83. Dr. Carson's second mode of solution, . . 270-276 
 Abandons the ground of the first theory, . . . 270 
 
 Taking the word emblem in its true sense, the theory is 
 
 false, 271 
 
 Secondary sense of the word emblem, . . . .271 
 
 Second theory insufficient. Dr. Carson being judge, . 272-276 
 § 84. Dr. Carson's self-contradiction, . . . 276, 277 
 
 He makes assertions for effect, ..... 278 
 
 § 85. Dr. Carson's false theory as to clinic baptisms, 279-282 
 Dr. Carson's ignorance of Cyprian's usus loquendi, . . 279 
 
 Mistranslation of Cyprian, ...... 280 
 
 Other errors, 281, 282 
 
 § 86. Dr. Carson's insinuations, .... 282, 283 
 He insinuates that my quotations from the Fathers do not 
 
 prove the sense of (Sai^iti^o) at the time of establishing 
 
 the ordinance, ....... 282 
 
 Refutation, 283 
 
 CHAPTER II. 
 
 Dr. Carson^s attempt to argue from the Fathers. 
 
 Introductory remarks, ....... 284 
 
 § 87. Point at issue, 285-287 
 
 § 88. Analysis and classification of Dr. Carson's asser- 
 
 tions, 287-291 
 
 Four irrelevant assertions, ..... 287, 288 
 
 Two, draw false inferences from historical facts, . 289, 290 
 Three already answered, ...... 290 
 
 One an argument against himself, . . . . ib. 
 
 The rest not to his purpose, 291 
 
CONTENTS. XIX 
 
 PAGE 
 
 291,292 
 293-299 
 
 . 292 
 293, 294 
 295-298 
 
 . 299 
 299-302 
 302-304 
 304, 305 
 305-308 
 
 . 305 
 306, 307 
 
 . 308 
 and notice of Dr. 
 
 § 89. Second class of assertions, 
 
 § 90. Assertions as to Justin Martyr, 
 
 Importance of Justin's testimony, 
 
 Justin's description of baptism. 
 
 Dialogue with Trypho the Jew, 
 
 Other assertions, ...... 
 
 § 91. Dr. Carson's demonstration, 
 
 § 92. Argument from Tertullian and Chrysostom, 
 
 § 93. Trine immersion, .... 
 
 § 94. ' Appeal to Jerome and Cyprian, 
 
 Dr. Carson's strange assertion, 
 
 Jerome's real view, ..... 
 
 Cyprian's real view, 
 
 § 95. Cause of Dr. Carson's delusion, 
 
 Sears, 308-310 
 
 §96. Baptism of the Holy Spirit, .... 310-316 
 
 Importance of the topic. Great efforts of Dr. Carson 
 
 through his volume. Turning point of the discussion, 
 
 View of Dr. Carson, Neander, Wahl, Rosenmiiller, Schleus- 
 
 ner, and Bloomfield, ...... 
 
 This view clearly erroneous by the explicit testimony of the 
 Fathers, ..... 
 
 Paul testifies against it, ... 
 
 The antithesis forbids it, ... 
 
 Dr. Carson's lesson in rhetoric of no avail, 
 § 97. Dr. Carson's candor, . 
 § 98. Dr. Carson's bad spirit, 
 § 99. Dr. Carson's first series of attacks on my com- 
 petency as a scholar, ..... 322-326 
 
 §100. Second series of attacks, .... 326-333 
 
 Dr. Carson's aim in such a course, ..... 327 
 
 Assault on the statement as to taking away the right to 
 
 think others wrong, 327, 328 
 
 He charges me falsely with trying to prove my point by 
 
 recommendations, ....... 328 
 
 He tries to rebut the assertion as to the inconvenience of 
 
 immersion, ........ 328 
 
 He assails me for declaring my view liberal, and free, rea- 
 sonable, and fit, 329, 330 
 
 310 
 
 310 
 
 311,312 
 . 313 
 313,314 
 314-316 
 316,317 
 317-322 
 
XX CONTENTS. 
 
 PAGfi 
 
 He assails the remarks as to the formalism, arrogance, and 
 
 exclusion, to which immersion tends, . . 330, 331 
 
 He ridicules the statement that this view is adequate to 
 
 harmonize the church, 331, 332 
 
 Remarks as to capability of proof, ..... 333 
 
 Dr. Carson's reasons for assailing my competency as a 
 
 scholar stated in his own words, . : . . 333 
 
 Conclusion, 333, 334 
 
 Note 1. On commingling of senses, and on baptismal 
 
 regeneration, as spoken of in §§ 19, 20, . . . 335 
 
 Note 2. On the opinions of the modern Greeks as referred 
 
 to on page 68 ib» 
 
 Note 3. On evidence of the sense to Wash in /Sa-n'Ti^w, de- 
 rived from baths : to illustrate pp. 192 and 198, . 336 
 
 Note 4. Extract from letters to Rev. Wm. Hague, in 
 reply to Dr. Carson's assertion on a passage from 
 Clement, quoted on p. 153, § 50, . . . . ib. 
 
 Note 5. No attempt by Dr. Carson to reply to Part II. 
 
 Chap. II. on Rom. vi. 3, 4. Col. ii. 12. . . . 342 
 
PARTI. 
 
 THE IMPORT OF /3a<rm'^w. 
 
 CHAPTER I . 
 
 To engage anew in the discussion of the subject of Baptism, 
 may seem to need an apology. Mine is, that it is a point in 
 which Christians are not as yet agreed, and therefore all truth is 
 not seen. For I cannot think that God has of design hidden the 
 truth, or that he has revealed it doubtfully on a point which has 
 proved to be of such magnitude by its practical results. Hence 
 I believe that when all truth is seen on this subject, which may 
 be seen, all true Christians will so far agree that no obstacle to 
 their perfect union in feeling and action will remain. 
 
 But the truth on this, as on all other subjects, is not to be 
 elicited by the action of any one mind, but by the united contri- 
 butions of many. 
 
 When in the dark ages, in the midnight of Papal gloom, all 
 truth was lost or obscured, and the social fabric erected on prin- 
 ciples radically corrupt, it pleased God to make no new revela- 
 tion, nor to raise up and illumine any one gigantic mind, of 
 power to grasp all truth, and to restore it at once to its systematic 
 proportion, or to erect in all its harmony a model of the social 
 system in its perfect state. 
 
 Of the universal system different individuals grasped different 
 part, yet still mingled with much error, and thus God accom- 
 plished that which no single mind was capacious enough to do. 
 
 1 
 
a REASONS FOR DISCUSSION. 
 
 He grasped, through many minds, the great outlines of the system 
 of universal truth, so that none might be lost. Yet as in indivi- 
 dual minds it was still limited and mingled with much error, 
 divisions and sects arose, eacli holding importanl truth, which 
 God was not willing to lose ; and yet not so unmingled or in such 
 proportions that all could unite as one. 
 
 But this mixture of error with truth is not destined always to 
 last. The movement of the mind of the universal church is 
 destined still to be upward ; for she is taught of God. 
 
 And in completing the fabric which he is about to erect, each 
 shall contribute his portion of truth to the grand result, whilst the 
 errors of each shall disappear and die away. Then shall all 
 finite minds be harmonized in one by the all-pervading mind of 
 God. As if to prepare the way for this result, the public mind 
 has of late been directed with new interest to this subject. It has 
 been brought up by certain great questions in evangelizing the 
 world, and has excited much attention. 
 
 !-^ It has elicited works of much talent and extensive research 
 through a wide field of philology. The spirit of the discussion 
 has been much ameliorated, at least in many of the leading writers, 
 though not always in the local and subordinate controversies. 
 Yet union is far from being obtained ; nay, in some particulars, the 
 prospect is more discouraging than ever. This must be a matter 
 of grief to all who desire the fulfilment of the prayer of Christ. 
 Nor is it in harmony with the convictions of the age on the duty 
 of Christian unity ; for however Christians practise, they are more 
 and more convinced that there is something wrong and offensive 
 to God in the present divided state of the Church. 
 
 We have reason, then, to suppose that exactly the right ground 
 has not been taken on either side, and we ought to aim at the 
 simply ground of truth for the sake of union and the common 
 good. 
 
 To furnish some small share of the materials which God may 
 use in producing this result, is my object in this effort. — And at 
 present my remarks will relate entirely to the mode of Baptism. 
 
§ 1. STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES. 3 
 
 § 1. Statement of the case, and of j^rinciples of investigation. 
 
 The case is this : Christ has enjoined the performance of a duty 
 in the command to baptize. 
 
 What is the duty enjoined ? — or, in other words, what does the 
 word Baptize, in which the command is given, mean ? One of 
 two things must be true : — 
 
 1. Either it is, as to mode, generic, denoting merely the pro- 
 duction of an effect (as purity), so that the command may be 
 fulfilled in many ways ; — or, it is so specific, denoting a definite 
 mode, that it can be fulfilled in but one. To illustrate by an analo- 
 gous case, Christ said, "Go, teach all nations." Here the word 
 go, is so generic as to include all modes of going which any one 
 may choose to adopt. If a man walks, or runs, or rides, or sails, 
 he equally fulfils the command. On the other hand, some king or 
 ruler, for particular reasons, might command motion by a word 
 entirely specific, as for example, that certain mourners should 
 walk in a funeral procession. Now it is plain that such a com- 
 mand could not be fulfilled by riding or by running, for though 
 these are modes of going, they are not modes of walking, and the 
 command is not to go in general, but specifically to walk. So 
 when a general says March, it will not answer for the soldiers to 
 run ; for, though this is a mode of going, it is not a mode of 
 marching. 
 
 So, likewise, when Christ said baptize, he either used a word 
 which had a generic sense, denoting the production of an eflTect, 
 in any mode, such as purify, cleanse ; or a specific sense, denoting 
 a particular mode, such as immerse, sprinkle, pour. 
 
 2. Whichever way we decide, as it regards the import of the 
 word, we ought to be uniform in its use as applied to the rite of 
 baptism. For though the same word may have diverse meanings 
 when applied to different things, and in various circumstances, 
 yet it certainly cannot, when applied to the same thing, and in the 
 same circumstances. 
 
 Hence, if we adopt the generic meaning, purify or cleanse, we 
 
4 STATEMENT OF PRINCIPLES. § 1. 
 
 must adhere to it at all times, when speaking of the rite. On the 
 other hand, if we adopt a specific meaning, as immerse or sprin- 
 kle, we must adhere to it in the same way, and not pass from the 
 generic to the specific, or from the specific to the generic, accord- 
 ing to exigencies, on the ground that the word Barn'ri^c^ may, in 
 the whole circuit of its use, mean sometimes one thing and some- 
 times another. Nor must we adopt both, for however numerous 
 the possible meanings of a word may be in its various usages, it 
 has in each particular case but one meaning, and in all similar 
 cases its meaning is the same. Hence the word Ba'TTTj^w, as ap- 
 plied to a given rite, has not two or many meanings, but one, and 
 to that one we should in all cases adhere. 
 
 3. If we adopt a generic meaning, denoting the production of 
 an eflfect, we are not limited by the command to any specific 
 mode of fulfilling it, and are at liberty to vary the mode accord- 
 ing to circumstances. But if we adopt a specific meaning, de- 
 noting merely a mode, we are limited by the very import of the 
 command, to the range of that meaning. 
 
 Hence if the command is purify or cleanse, we are not limited 
 by the command to any one mode, but may choose that which 
 seems to us most appropriate, whether it be sprinkling, pouring, 
 or immersion. 
 
 But if the command is specific and modal, as immerse, then we 
 are limited by the range of that word, and cannot fulfil the com- 
 mand by sprinkling or pouring, for these are not modes of immer- 
 sion, any more than riding is a mode of walking, or writing a 
 mode of painting. 
 
 It is true that sprinkling and pouring may be modes of purify- 
 ing, — and so is riding a mode of going. But if the command is 
 not purify, but immerse, then all debate as to the mode is at 
 an end, for you can immerse, not by sprinkling, but only by im- 
 mersion. 
 
§ 2. DISREGARD OF PRINCIPLES. 5 
 
 § 2. Causes of the disregard of these 'principles, and the false posi- 
 tions to which this disregard has given rise. 
 
 Though the principles stated are simple and obvious, yet the 
 natural operations of the mind on questions of philology, have 
 been in this case embarrassed and perplexed by certain influences 
 of a kind peculiar to this word. 
 
 At the time of the translation of the Bible, a controversy had 
 arisen as it regards the import of the word, so that, although it 
 was conceded to have an import in the original, yet it was im- 
 possible to assign to it in English any meaning, without seeming 
 to take sides in the controversy then pending. 
 
 Accordingly, in order to take neither side, they did not attempt 
 to give the sense of the term in a significant English word, but 
 merely transferred the word Bairrl^u, with a slight alteration of 
 termination, to our language. The consequence was that it did 
 not exhibit its original significancy to the mind of the English 
 reader, or indeed any significancy, except what was derived from 
 its application to designate an external visible rite. — In short, it 
 became merely the name of a rite, and had a usage strictly 
 technical, and lost to the ear whatever significance it originally 
 had. 
 
 The habit of using the word in a technical sense, has tended 
 to unfit the mind for the discussion of the question as to the 
 mode of baptism, in various ways, of which I shall mention 
 three. 
 
 1. It has led to a departure from the principles already stated, 
 that words, when applied to the same subject, and in the same 
 circumstances, cannot have a double sense. This rule, as has 
 been remarked, does not forbid tiiat the same word in difierent 
 circumstances should have various senses ; accordingly it may be 
 conceded that tiie word /^a-Trri^w has various senses in the wide 
 range of its usage, in scriptural and classical Greek : but out of 
 this variety of usages, there is one strictly of a religious nature, 
 and having direct reference to one of the great revealed facts of 
 
6 DISREGARD OF PRINCIPLES. § 2. 
 
 Christianity. Now in a case like this, the laws of philology re- 
 quire that some one of the meanings of the word"should be fixed 
 on, and assigned to it in all cases. But the habit of using the 
 Avord baptize in a strictly technical sense, as the name of a rite, 
 has led to a disregard of this simple and obvious rule. 
 
 Many writers, fixing their minds merely upon the idea of a 
 rite, and finding that the word Baitri^u) means sometimes to wash, 
 sometimes to immerse, and sometimes, as they think, to pour or 
 sprinkle, conclude that the rite of Baptism may be performed in 
 either way ; entirely forgetting that, although the word should 
 happen, in the wide range of its usage, scriptural and classical, 
 secular and religious, to have all these meanings, it by no means 
 follows that when used as a religious term, it has more than one. 
 Hence, if as a religious term, and in certain circumstances, it 
 means immerse, it does not also in similar circumstances mean 
 to wet or to wash, to sprinkle or to pour, to color or to dye, but 
 simply to immerse. And just as plainly, if in some cases of its 
 religious uses, it means to purify, it does not in others of the same 
 kind mean to pour, to sprinkle, or to immerse. 
 
 2. The other mode in which the technical use of this word has 
 unfitted the mind for a fair consideration of the question is, it has 
 permitted the introduction of a discussion as to the mode of bap- 
 tism, after concessions have been made, which ought for ever to 
 exclude it. For example, the question arises what meaning did 
 the word /SaTrTi^w convey to those, who in the age of the New 
 Testament writers read the command, go baptize all nations ? 
 Was it to immerse ? So our brethren the Baptists maintain, 
 and so many who do not immerse, concede. Now after such a 
 concession, with what propriety they can debate any longer as to 
 the mode, I acknowledge that 1 cannot perceive. Nor do I think 
 that they would do it, were it not for an illusion practised by the 
 technical word Baptize, upon their minds. 
 
 After admitting as a point of philology, that the word /Sa-TfTi^w 
 in its religious use means immerse, the mind seems to revert to 
 the old habit of using the Anglicised word baptism, without attach- 
 
§ 3. CLASSIFICATION OF THEORIES. 7 
 
 ing to it any meaning, and we are at once told that it is of no use 
 to dispute as to the mode of baptism. Suppose, now, instead of 
 the word baptism, we substitute the meaning which it has been 
 conceded to have, and the illusion is at once exposed. We con- 
 cede that /Da'TTTj^oj means immerse, but of what use is it to dispute 
 concerning the mode of immersion? Of none, surely, so you do 
 but immerse. But can you immerse by sprinkling ? Is sprink- 
 ling a mode of immersion ? The fact is, that if the word denotes 
 a given definite act, no other dissimilar act is, or can be a mode 
 of it. Pouring is not a mode of sprinkling or of immersion, nor 
 is sprinkling a mode of pouring or of immersion, nor is immersion 
 a mode of sprinkling or pouring. 
 
 3. Others, again, still using the word merely as a technic, 
 say that Baptism is the application of water, in any way, in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; but 
 base their conclusions rather on reason and the nature of the case, 
 or on the design of the rite, than on a thorough philological investi- 
 gation of the word. Now the defect of this last mode of reason- 
 ing is, that it does not interpret the command. It uses the word 
 like a technic, having no meaning of its own, and gives rather a 
 description of a rite, than a definition of Ba-n-Ti^w. 
 
 No one ever pretended to define Baifri^o) as meaning " to apply 
 water in any way " — of course Baptism cannot be defined to be 
 *' the application of water in any way." And whether this view 
 of the rite is correct or not, must depend entirely on the meaning 
 of the word. 
 
 § 3. Statement of the position to he proved. 
 
 From what has been said it is plain that those who have writ- 
 ten on the subject of the mode of Baptism may be arranged in 
 four classes. 
 
 1. Those who maintain that the word in the whole extent of its 
 usage has various meanings, and from this fact alone draw the 
 inference that, therefore, the rite may be performed in various 
 
8 POSITION TO BE PROVED. § 3. 
 
 ways, making at the same time no attempt to prove which of its 
 possible meanings it actually has in the case in question. 
 
 2. Those who fix on a specific and modal meaning — e. g. 
 immerse, and which, of course, excludes all dispute as to the mode, 
 and yet insist that no mode is essential. 
 
 3. Those who look mainly at the obvious design of the rite, 
 i. e. to indicate purity, and on this ground affirm that to Baptize 
 is to apply water in any way which denotes purity, without 
 attempting to make out a philological proof of the truth of their 
 position from the import of the word Ba-Trrjjw. 
 
 4. Those who insist that the word in all its extent of usage has 
 but one meaning — viz. to immerse — and that this excludes all 
 debate as to the mode. 
 
 None of these positions is, in my judgment, adapted to explain 
 all the facts which occur in the use of the word, and to give 
 satisfaction and rest to an inquiring mind. Any view which shall 
 effectually do this will be found to have the following requisites : 
 
 (1.) That it shall be strictly philological. 
 
 (2.) That out of all the possible meanings of jSaTTTj Jw, it shall 
 fix on one as the real meaning in the case in question. 
 
 (3.) That it shall at all times steadily adhere to this. 
 
 (4.) That this shall limit the performance of the rite to no par- 
 ticular mode. 
 
 The position which I shall endeavor accordingly to prove by 
 appeal to facts, is this, that the word ^airri^u, as a religious 
 term, means neither dip nor sprinkle, immerse nor pour — nor 
 any other external action in applying a fluid to the body, or the 
 body to a fluid — nor any action which is limited to one mode of 
 performance ; but that as a religious term it means at all times, 
 to purify, or cleanse — words of a meaning so general as not to be 
 confined to any mode, or agent, or means, or object, whether 
 material or spiritual, but to leave the widest scope for the ques- 
 tion as to the mode — so that, in this usage, it is in every respect a 
 perfect synonym of the word xada^i^u. 
 
 Let it then be borne in mind, that the question is not this. 
 
§ 3. POSITION TO BE PROVED. 9 
 
 Does the word in all its extent of usage denote at any time a defi- 
 nite external act ? Nor this, Is this its original, primitive signifi- 
 cation ? Even if all this were admitted, it would not touch the 
 question — for, as we all know, nothing is more common than for 
 words to be used in more meanings than one, and to decide in 
 what sense a word is used in a given instance, we are not to fol- 
 low etymology or fancy, but evidence, derived from the facts of 
 the case. 
 
 With regard then to other uses of the word ^a'm'^w, I freely 
 admit that in classic usage it does, as a general fact, clearly de- 
 note some external act of a specific kind, yet it is by no means 
 clear to my mind that it does not in different cases denote different 
 acts. And though I do not regard it as an integral part of the 
 argument which I propose to construct, yet for the sake of com- 
 pleteness, I think it best to state what seems to be the truth on 
 this point. 
 
 1. I freely admit that in numerous cases it clearly denotes to 
 immerse — in which case an agent submerges partially or totally 
 some person or thing. Indeed, this is so notoriously true, that I 
 need attempt no proof. Innumerable examples are at hand, and 
 enough may be found, in all the most common discussions of this 
 subject. 
 
 2. It is also applied to cases where a fluid without an agent 
 rolls over, or floods, and covers anything — as in the oft quoted 
 passage in Diodorus Siculus, Vol. VII. p. 191, as translated by 
 Prof Stuart : " The river, borne along by a more violent current, 
 overwhelmed many " (s/Da-Tr-r/^^s). So, Vol. I. p. 107, he speaks 
 of land animals intercepted by the Nile, as (Sa'n'ri^o^svct, over- 
 whelmed and perishing. The same mode of speaking is also ap- 
 plied to the sea shore, which is spoken of by Aristotle as baptized 
 or overwhelmed by the tide. 
 
 3. It is also applied in cases where some person or thing sinks 
 passively into the flood. Thus Josephus, in narrating his 
 shipwreck on the Adriatic, uses this word to describe the sink- 
 ing of the ship. 
 
 1* 
 
10 POSITION TO BE PROVED. § 3. 
 
 I am aware that by some writers vigorous efforts are made to 
 reduce all these senses to the original idea to immerse or dip. 
 But it seems to me that they are rather led by their zeal to sup- 
 port a theory, than by a careful induction from facts ; and that 
 they wrest facts to suit their principles, rather than derive their 
 principles from facts. 
 
 To me it seems plain that in all these cases there is a material 
 difference as to the external act, nor am I prepared to admit 
 that either, in preference to the other, is the original and primitive 
 meaning of the word. If it were an object of much importance 
 to decide what this is, inasmuch as they all agree in one common 
 idea of a state or condition, though variously caused, I should 
 incline to give to the word the meaning to cause to come into that 
 state, and this idea is favored by the termination, i(^w. The state 
 is, a state of being enveloped or surrounded by a fluid, or any 
 thing else adapted to produce such a result. And a general 
 meaning of (Ba'n'Ti^u) would thus be, to cause to come into this 
 state — whether it be done by an agent immersing an object in a 
 fluid, or by the flowing of a fluid over an object, without the in- 
 tervention of any agent, or by the passive sinking of an object 
 into it. In all these cases the state of the object becomes the 
 same, but the external act, by which it comes into this state, is 
 not the same in either case. 
 
 To all this, however, I attach no great importance in the dis- 
 cussion of the present question ; unless it be of use in exposing 
 the fallacy of all efforts to reduce this word to such a perfect sim- 
 plicity of meaning, even as it regards an external act, as is 
 claimed for it by some. 
 
 On the other hand, even if I were to admit that its original and 
 primitive idea was to immerse, and that when it denotes an exter- 
 nal act, it never departs from this sense ; still the question would 
 arise, Is there not another meaning derived from the effects of 
 this act, and in which the mind contemplates the effect alone, en- 
 tirely irrespective of the mode in which it is produced ? 
 
 I contend that there is — and that as thorough purification or 
 
§ 4. PROBABILITIES. 11 
 
 cleansing is often the result of submersion in water, so the word 
 (BoLirri^u) has come to signify to purify or cleanse thoroughly, 
 without any reference to the mode in which it is done. 
 
 § 4. Doctrine of ProbahiUties. 
 
 There is not d priori the least improbability of such a change 
 of meaning, from the laws of the mind, or of language. 
 
 It may at first sight seem an improbable position to some, that 
 if a word originally signifies " to immerse," it can assume a 
 meaning so remote from its primitive sense as " to purify,'^ and 
 entirely drop all reference to the mode. 
 
 Yet the slightest attention to the laws of the mind, and to well- 
 known facts, will show that not the least improbability of such a 
 result exists. 
 
 No principle is more universally admitted by all sound philolo- 
 gists, than that to establish the original and primitive meaning of 
 a word, is not at all decisive as it regards its subsequent usages. 
 It often aids only as giving a clue by which we can trace the pro- 
 gress of the imagination, or the association of ideas, in leading 
 the mind from meaning to meaning, on some ground of relation, 
 similitude, or connexion of cause and effect. 
 
 So the verb to spring, denotes an act, and gives rise to a noun 
 denoting an act. A perception of similitude transfers the word 
 to the issuing of water from a fountain — to the motion of a watch- 
 spring — and to the springing of plants in the spring of the year. 
 Yet who does not feel that to be able to trace such a process of 
 thought, is far from proving that, when a man in one case says, 
 I made a spring over the ditch, in another, I broke the spring of 
 my watch, in another, I drank from the spring, in another, I pre- 
 fer spring to winter, he means in each case the same thing by the 
 word spring ? And who, in using these words, always resorts 
 to the original idea of the verb ? Indeed, so far is it from being 
 true that this is commonly done, that most persons are pleased 
 when the track of the mind is uncovered, and the path is pointed 
 
12 PROBABILITIES. § 4. 
 
 out by which it had passed from meaning to meaning, as if a new 
 idea had been acquired. So conversation, prevent, charity, as now 
 used, have obviously departed widely from the sense in which 
 they were used in the days of the translators of the Bible. 
 
 But to multiply words on a point so plain, would be needless, 
 had not so much stress been laid on the supposed original mean- 
 ing of this word. It is, therefore, too plain to be denied, that 
 words do often so far depart from their primitive meaning, as entire- 
 ly to leave out the original idea — and that the secondary senses of 
 a word are often by far the most numerous and important. 
 
 Moreover, to establish such secondary meanings, it is not 
 necessary that we should be able to trace the course of the mind, 
 though it is pleasant to be able to do it. A secondary meaning, 
 however unlike it may seem to the primitive, may yet be estab- 
 lished like any other fact in the usage of language, that is, by 
 appropriate testimony. 
 
 But whilst such transitions are common in all words, they are 
 particularly common in words of the class of (oaitTi^u), denoting 
 action by, or with reference to, a fluid. This is owing to the fact 
 that the effects produced by the action, depend not on the action 
 alone, but on the action and the fluid combined — and of course 
 may be varied as the fluid or its application varies. 
 
 Let us now take the general idea of enveloping or immersing 
 in a fluid, and see how unlike the effects to which it may give 
 rise. 
 
 If the envelopment is produced by a flood, or torrent, or waves, 
 the effect may be to overwhelm, to oppress, to destroy. 
 
 If, by taking up the object and immersing it into a coloring 
 fluid, it is to impart a new color, or to dye. 
 
 If by taking up an object and immersing it into a cleansing 
 fluid — or by going into a cleansing fluid, the effect is to purify or 
 cleanse. 
 
 And on these natural or material senses, may be founded the 
 same number of spiritual or moral senses, by transferring the 
 ideas to the mind. 
 
§ 4. PROBABILITIES. 13 
 
 Now as a matter of fact such transfers have taken place in 
 cognate and similar words. 
 
 I shall out of many select a few cases from Greek, Latin, 
 English, and Hebrew words, fully to illustrate, and clearly to 
 confirm these principles, and to show that they are peculiar to no 
 language, but rest on universal laws of the mind. 
 
 In Greek, all admit that the most common sense of /Sowttw is to 
 dip, to immerse. I am willing to admit that it is the primitive sense. 
 
 But it is beyond all dispute that the same word has passed 
 to the meaning to dye, without any reference to mode. Great 
 efforts were once made to deny this. But the most intelligent 
 Baptists now entirely abandon this ground, and that with the best 
 reason. And indeed, so far has the word passed from its original 
 sense that it- is applied to coloring the surface of an object by 
 gold, i. e. to gilding. A few examples out of many, in so plain 
 a case, must suffice. In the battle of the frogs and mice, a mouse 
 is represented as dyeing or coloring the lake with his blood — 
 s^aitrsTo aTixari Xifxv?;. On this there was once a battle royal to 
 prove that it could be proper to speak of dipping a lake into the 
 blood of a mouse ; and all the powers of rhetoric were put in re- 
 quisition to justify the usage. Hear now Dr. Carson, inferior in 
 learning and research to none of the Baptists : " To suppose that 
 there is here any extravagant allusion to the literal immersion or 
 dipping of a lake, is a monstrous perversion of taste. The lake 
 is said to be di/ed, not to be dipped, or pioured, or sprinkled. 
 There is in the word no reference to mode. Had Baptists entrench- 
 ed themselves here, they would have saved themselves much use- 
 less toil, and much false criticism, without straining to the impeach- 
 ment of their candor or their taste. What a monstrous paradox in 
 rhetoric is the figuring of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a 
 mouse ! Yet Dr. Gale supposes that the lake was dipped by hy- 
 perbole. The literal sense he says is, the lake was dipped in 
 blood. Never was there such a figure. The lake is not said to 
 be dipped in blood, but to be dyed ivith blood." p. 48, last 
 American edition. This is well said, and is the more to our 
 
14 ANALOGOUS FACTS. § 4. 
 
 purpose on account of its author. Indeed his whole discussion 
 of this point is able, lucid, and decisive. Of the examples 
 adduced by him I shall quote one or two more. 
 
 " Hippocrates employs it to denote dyeing, by dropping the dye- 
 ing liquid on the thing dyed : s-Trsit^av ziiidra^ji siri ra ijxaTja fBccTt- 
 rsrui : ' When it drops upon the garments they are dyed.' This 
 surely is not dyeing by dipping." Carson, p. 44. 
 
 " Again. In Arrian — Expedition of Alexander : <rouj §s <7rw- 
 yuvag \sysi Nsap-)(og oVj /Sa-Tr-rwvrai I'v^oj : ' Nearchus relates that 
 the Indians dye their beards.' It will not -be contended that they 
 dyed their beards by immersion." p. 44. 
 
 He quotes cases in which it is used to describe the coloring of 
 the hair ; the staining of a garment by blood ; the staining of the 
 hand by crushing a coloring substance in it ; for which, and others 
 of a like kind, I refer to him, and to Prof. Stuart. 
 
 In the compounds and derivatives of this word the sense to dye 
 is very extensive ; to be fully satisfied of which, let any one ex- 
 amine the Thesaurus of H. Stephens, or the abbreviation of it by 
 Scapula on this word. 
 
 It is compounded with colors of all kinds, as ifop(pvpso(3a(p'r)g 
 uaxi\i&mf3a(prig, of a purple or a hyacinthine dye. It denotes a 
 dyer, a dyeing vat, a dye-house, etc., ^acpsvs (BacpsTov, etc., and it 
 even passes, as before stated, to cases in which a new color is 
 produced by the external application of a solid, as xpu(j'o?a(p*)f, 
 colored with gold, or gilded. 
 
 But it is needless to quote at large all the examples which 
 might be adduced to illustrate and confirm these points ; and as 
 all that I claim is conceded even by our Baptist brethren, to pro- 
 ceed further would seem like an attempt at useless display. I 
 shall therefore proceed to consider the usages of a kindred word 
 in the Latin lano-uage. 
 
 Tingo, beyond all doubt, means to immerse. In this sense 
 Facciolatus and Forcellinus, in their Totius Latinitatis Lexicon, 
 give /^a'TTTw as its synonyme. And as /Ha-Trrw is used to describe 
 the immersing of an axe to temper it, so is tingo, to describe simi- 
 
§ 4. ANALOGOUS FACTS. 15 
 
 lar operations. So Virgil, speaking of the operations of the Cyclo- 
 pean workmen of Vulcan, thus describes them as immersing the 
 hissing metals in water to temper them, " Stridentia tingunt sera 
 lacu." M. viii. 450. They dip the hissing brass in the lake. 
 
 So speaking of a sword. He had dipped the sword in Stygian 
 water. " Tinxerat unda stygia ensem." M. xii. 91. Celsus 
 speaks of sponges dipped in vinegar. " Spongia in aceto tincta." 
 
 The setting of the heavenly bodies is spoken of as an immer- 
 sion in the sea, and to describe this tingo is used : 
 
 " Tingere se oceano properant soles hyberni." Virg. Georg. 
 ii. 481. The winter suns haste to dip themselves in the ocean. 
 
 " Tingat equos gurgite Phoebus," M.. xi. 914. Phoebus dips 
 his horses in the deep. 
 
 But to prove that it means immerse is needless ; no one can 
 deny it, nor is it the point at which I chiefly aim. This is, that 
 like jSa-TTTw, it loses all reference to the act of immersion, and 
 comes to signify simply to dye or color in any way. 
 
 Of this there is a presumptive proof that is obvious even to 
 those who do not understand the learned languages. It has given 
 rise to the words tinge and tint in our language — and who that 
 speaks of the rosy tints of morn, or of the sun tinging the clouds 
 with golden light, would have the least thought of immersion ? 
 And is it probable that such senses would have passed from the 
 'Latin to our language, had tingo not passed from its original 
 sense to that of dyeing or coloring in any mode 1 
 
 But there is direct proof in the Latin classics of the same kind 
 as exists with respect to /Sa'Trrw. 
 
 Horace uses the word to denote the dyeing of wool, as " tingere 
 lanas murice ;" Ovid, to denote the coloring of the hair and of 
 ivory ; Horace, to denote the coloring of the axe used in sacri- 
 ficing the victims, as " victima pontificum secures cervice tinget ;" 
 Virgil, Geor. iii. v. 492, to denote the malignant effects of a 
 plague on cattle, mentions that they had scai'ce blood enough left 
 to color the knives used to slay them. 
 
 Vix suppositi tinguntur sanguine cultri. 
 
16 ANALOGOUS FACTS. § 4. 
 
 So in Georg. ii. v. 8. We have the words " Tinge crura musto," 
 referring to the coloring or staining of the legs by the treading of 
 the wine-press. In Pliny we have " Tingentium officinse," shops of 
 dyers, and in Cicero, Tincta, in the phrase " tincta absint," to denote 
 colored things. It is followed by an accusative of the color, as in 
 Pliny " tingere cceruleum," to dye blue. We have also in Lucre- 
 tius, " Loca lumine tingunt nubes" — to tinge or color, that is to 
 illuminate with light. See Forcellinus and Facciolatus, or Leve- 
 rett's Lexicon, on the word. 
 
 Indeed on this word no less than on ^a'trro) we have the une- 
 quivocal concession of Dr. Carson, that it means to dye. " In 
 Latin also, the same word, tingo, signifies both to dip and to dye." 
 Carson, p. 54. 
 
 Facciolatus and Forcellinus, and Leverett, also give it the 
 sense to moisten, to wet, and make it in this sense synonymous 
 with rsy'y(ji — from which indeed it is derived, and to my mind the 
 examples adduced are abundantly sufficient to establish this sense. 
 But on this it is needless to insist, as Dr. Carson professes not to 
 be satisfied that this sense can be established, and for the present 
 I wish to rely on facts concerning which there is no dispute. 
 
 In English, for the sake of contrast, I shall select the word to 
 wash. 
 
 The original and common idea of this word is, undeniably, to 
 cleanse by a purifying fluid, as water — and that, without respect 
 to mode. Of these ideas in its progress it drops all, and assumes 
 a meaning that involves neither to purify, nor to use a fluid 
 at all. 
 
 As washing is often performed by a superficial application of 
 a fluid, it often assumes this sense and loses entirely the idea of 
 cleansing, as when we speak of washing a wound with brandy : 
 or with some cooling application, to alleviate inflammation. In 
 this case we aim not at cleansing but at medicinal effect. So we 
 can speak of the s^a as washing the shores or rocks, denoting 
 not cleansing, but the copious superficial application of a fluid. 
 
 Again, as a superficial application of a fluid or a coloring 
 
§4. ANALOGOUS FACTS. 17 
 
 mixture is often made for the sake of changing the color, we 
 ha.ve to white-wash, to red-wash, to yellow-wash ; and the sub- 
 stances or fluid mixtures with which this is done, are called 
 washes. 
 
 Next it drops the idea of a fluid at all, and assumes the sense 
 of a superficial application of a solid — as to wash with silver or 
 gold. 
 
 And here a remarkable coincidence in result, in words of 
 meaning originally unlike, deserves notice, as a striking illus- 
 tration of the progress of the mind in effecting such changes. 
 
 In Greek, /DaTrrw denotes originally to immerse — action alone, 
 without reference to effect. In English wash denotes to cleanse 
 or purify alone, without reference to mode. Yet by the opera- 
 tion of the laws of association, both are used to denote coloring, 
 and both to denote covering superficially with silver or gold. 
 
 Finally, when we speak of the wash of a cow-yard, and call 
 those places where deposits of earth or filth, or vegetable matter, 
 are made, washes, who will contend that the idea of purity is 
 retained ? 
 
 Again, lusiro denotes to purify, by certain religious rites, and 
 especially by carrying around the victim previously to its being 
 killed. 
 
 From this it passes to the idea of passing around or through — 
 dropping the idea of purifying — as " Pythagoras Egyptum lustra- 
 vit." Cicero — Pythagoras traversed Egypt ; " Navibus lustrandum 
 sequor." Virg. — the ocean to be traversed with ships. 
 
 Hence it passes to the idea of observing, surveying, accurately 
 examining, either with the eyes or the mind. " Totum lustrabat 
 lumine corpus," Virg. He scrutinized, or examined his whole 
 body with his eyes. "Cum omnia ratione animoque lustraris," 
 when you shall have surveyed and accurately examined all things 
 by your reason and in your mind. 
 
 And what wider departure from the original sense to purify is 
 possible ? In Leveret xa^a^o'i^ is given as a synonyme of lus- 
 tratio, and yet the same word is used to denote travelling from 
 
18 PROSABILITIES AS TO BAHTIZQ. § 5* 
 
 city to city. "Lustratio municipiorum" — also the course or cir- 
 cuit of the sun — " lustratio solis." 
 
 So too in Ezek. xxiii : 15. p^to to immerse is used to denote 
 dyeing — where D'^''"'^5'"J denotes dyed attire, as Dr. Carson also 
 allows. 
 
 Similar transitions of meaning could be pointed out in lavo 
 055 and C]tc-d and other words, were it at all necessary, and did 
 
 time allow. 
 
 Now with such facts before us, to increase the number of which 
 indefinitely, were perfectly easy, who can say that there is the 
 slightest improbability in the idea that the word /SaTrn'^w should 
 pass from the sense to immerse, to the sense to purify, without 
 reference to the mode 1 Can (docn'Tu, tingo, and wash, pass through 
 similar transitions, and cannot (SantTi^c,) ? 
 
 But what secondary sense shall be adopted cannot be told 
 a priori, but must be decided by the habits, manners, customs, and 
 general ideas of a people, and sometimes by peculiar usages for 
 which no reason can be given. For example, no reason exists in 
 the nature of things why I3a<tru rather than /Sa-n-r/^w should pass 
 from the sense immerse to the sense to dye — yet there is evidence 
 that it did. On the other hand, it could not be certainly foretold 
 that /dcc-ttti^w rather than /ScfTTTw would pass to the sense to cleanse, 
 and yet that it did so pass may still be true, and if true, can be 
 proved like any other fact. 
 
 And the existence of manners and customs tending to such a 
 result, renders such a result probable. 
 
 § 5. ProhcibUilies as to (Ba'^^i^u). 
 
 Circumstances did exist tending to produce such a transfer of 
 meaning in f^airri^o), and therefore there is a strong probability 
 that it was made. 
 
 As it regards (SditTUi and tingo we have no proof that any peculiar 
 causes existed tending to such a* change of meaning as they are 
 confessed to have actually undergone. 
 
 But as it regards (Sairri^u, such a tendency can be proved to 
 
§ 6. PROBABILITIES FROM THE SUBJECT. 19 
 
 have existed in the manners and customs of the Jews, for though 
 no. immersions of the person were enjoined in the Mosaic ritual, 
 but simply washings of the body, or flesh, in any way, yet there 
 can be no doubt that immersions and bathings were in daily use — 
 and these, as w^ell as all their other washings, were solely for the 
 sake of purity, and held up this idea daily before the mind. 
 
 Hence, when after the conquests of Alexander, the Greek Ian- 
 guage began to be spoken by the Jews, it encountered a tendency 
 of the same kind as that which had already changed the meaning 
 of (3airru to color or dye ; but far more definite, powerful, and 
 all-pervading ; for the* practice of immersing to color was limited 
 to a few, but the practice of bathing or immersing to purify, was 
 common to a whole nation. Indeed the idea of purification from 
 uncleanness pervaded their whole ritual, in numberless cases, and 
 must have been perfectly familiar to ihe mind of every one. 
 
 The inference from these facts is so obvious that it hardly 
 needs to be stated. As the laws of the mind made from (SaifTc^, 
 to dye, to color, to paint, and from tingo, the same ; so there is a 
 very strong presumption that so general a use of immersion, to 
 produce purity, would give to [Ba'n'ri^c^ the corresponding sense, to 
 purify. This does not, I am aware, prove that it did. But it 
 opens the way for such proof, and shows that there is not the least 
 ground for the vigorous efforts that are made to set it aside. 
 
 Even a moderate degree of proof is sufficient in a case like this, 
 when the most familiar laws of the mind and all the power of pre- 
 sumptive evidence from analogical cases tends this way. 
 
 § 6. ProhaUUties from the subject. 
 
 There is no probability a priori against this position from the 
 general nature of the subject to which the word is applied, in the 
 rite of Baptism. But the probability is decidedly and strongly in 
 its favor. 
 
 No law of philology is more firmly established than this, that 
 in the progress of society, new ideas produce new words and new 
 senses of old words, and hence in judging concerning such new 
 
20 PHILOLOGICAL PRINCIPLES. § "7. 
 
 senses we are to look at the nature of the new subjects of thought 
 that arise. 
 
 Now that, in this case, the Greek language was applied to a 
 new subject of thought is most plain, and that subject is the pecu- 
 liar operations of the Holy Spirit ; for that the ordinance of Bap- 
 tism refers to these is admitted by all. 
 
 Hence if any external act had any peculiar fitness to present 
 these to the mind, a presumption would be in favor of that act ; 
 and if the meaning claimed by me was unfit to present them to 
 the mind, there would be a presumption against it. 
 
 But so far is this from being the fact, that directly the reverse 
 is true. What is the peculiar effect of the operation of the Holy 
 Ghost on the mind ? Is it not moral cleansing or purification ? 
 
 But no word denoting merely a mode of applying a fluid to a 
 thing, or of putting anything into a fluid, conveys of itself any 
 such idea. To pour, sprinkle, immerse, or dip, convey in them- 
 selves no idea at all of cleansing. The effect of the action de- 
 pends mainly on the fluid, not on the action, and may be either 
 to purify or to pollute. If clean water is used, the effect is to 
 purify. If filthy water is used, the effect is to pollute. So Job 
 says, " If I wash myself with snow-water and make my hands 
 never so clean, yet shalt thou plunge me [Greek ^aitri^. Heb. 
 ^5t3] in the ditch, and my own clothes shall abhor me." Here 
 the effect of plunging is pollution, because it is not into clean 
 water but into filthy. Hence, no external act has in itself any 
 fitness to present to the mind the operations of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 On the other hand to wash, to purify, to cleanse, all direct the 
 mind to the very thing done by the Holy Spirit — hence the pre- 
 sumption is entirely against the supposition that the word denotes 
 an external act, and in favor of the meaning claimed. 
 
 § 7. Philological principles. 
 
 There is decided philological proof in favor of this view. This 
 I shall soon proceed to adduce. But the course which the argu- 
 
§ 7. PHILOLOGICAL PKINCIPLES. 21 
 
 ment has too often taken, renders it necessary to make a few 
 remarks on the principles of the reasoning involved. 
 
 It is commonly the case, that after proving that there are clear 
 instances in which fBwTrTi^o) means to immerse, it is assumed that 
 it is violently improbable that it ever means anything else, and 
 that, if it can but be shown that in a given passage it can possibly 
 mean immerse, no more is needed, so that the main force of argu- 
 ment is not to prove that it does so mean from the exigency of the 
 place, but that it may possibly so mean, and, therefore, in conse- 
 quence of its meaning so in other places, it does so here. 
 
 Prof. Ripley reasons on these principles in his reply to Prof. 
 Stuart, but Dr. Carson has more boldly and fully developed them 
 than any writer on that side of the question with whom I am 
 acquainted. He goes so far as to say, pp. 72, 73, that when 
 one meaning of a word is proved by sufficient evidence, no objec- 
 tions to retaining this meaning in other places can be admitted as 
 decisive, except they involve an impossibility. This he says is 
 self-evident, and lays it down as a canon ; and affirms, p. 70, 
 that the man who does not perceive the justness of his positions 
 is not worth reasoning with. Now that there is not the least 
 ground for assuming the improbability of the meaning to purify, 
 nay that the probability is decidedly in its favor, I have clearly 
 shown. Of course to show that in a given case /SaTTTj^w can 
 possibly mean immerse is nothing to the point. The question is, 
 what is its fair, natural, and obvious sense in the case in question, 
 not what it can possibly by any stretch of ingenuity be made to 
 mean. 
 
 Of old it was customary in the same way to try to prove that 
 /Da-TTTw does not mean to dye, because some other sense is possible 
 or conceivable — and as we have seen. Gale even goes so far as 
 to maintain, that a lake is spoken of as figuratively dipped in the 
 blood of a mouse — lest 1^ should be obliged to admit the obvious 
 sense that the lake was dyed, colored, or tinged, with the blood 
 of a mouse. 
 
 But this mode of reasoning, as it regards /Sa-TrTw, is at last 
 
22 A QUESTION ABOUT PURIFYING. § 8. 
 
 candidly and fairly given up — and may we not hope that the 
 same candor will at length lead to the same results in the case of 
 the cognate word (BaifTi^u ? 
 
 It may be further observed that the reasoning of philology is 
 not demonstrative, but moral and cumulative ; and that an ulti- 
 mate result depends upon the combined impression of all the facts 
 of a given case as a whole — on the principle that the view, which 
 best harmonizes all the facts, and falls in with the known laws of 
 the human mind, is true. 
 
 And where many and separate and independent facts all tend 
 with different degrees of probability to a common result, there is 
 an evidence, over and above the evidence furnished by each case 
 by itself, in the coincidence of so many separate and independent 
 probabilities in a common result. And to be able to prove that 
 each may be explained otherwise, and is not in itself a demon- 
 stration, cannot break the force of the fact, that so many separate 
 and independent probabilities all tend one way. The probability 
 produced by such coincidences is greater than the sum of the 
 separate probabilities : it has the force of the fact that they coin- 
 cide — and that the assumption of the truth of the meaning in 
 which they all coincide, is the only mode of explaining the coin- 
 cidence. 
 
 That there are various independent proofs, that (BarrTl^ui as a 
 religious term means to purify, and that these all coincide, and 
 that this view harmonizes and explains all the facts of the case, 
 I shall now attempt to show. 
 
 § 8. A question about 'purifying. 
 
 In John iii. 25, xa^a^jfTuxoff is used as synonymous with iSwTfTKf. 
 liog, and thus the usus loquendi, as it regards the religious rite, 
 is clearly decided. 
 
 The facts of the case are these, vs. 22, 23. John and Jesus 
 were baptizing, one in Judea, the other in jEnon, near to Salim, 
 and in such circumstances that to an unintelligent observer there 
 
§ 8, A QUESTION ABOUT PURIFYING. 23 
 
 would seem to be a rivalry between the claims of the two. The 
 disciples of John might naturally feel that Jesus was intruding 
 into the province of their master. They might even believe John 
 to be the Messiah, and thus give rise to the sect which held that 
 belief. On this point a dispute arose between the disciples of 
 John and the Jews (or a Jew, as many copies read), v. 25. 
 
 They come to John and state the case, v. 26. " Rabbi, he 
 that was with thee beyond Jordan, to whom thou bearest witness, 
 behold the same haptizeth, and all men come to liim.^^ Plainly im- 
 plying that in so doing he was improperly interfering with the 
 claims of John. "' 
 
 John in reply, v. 27 — 31, disclaims all honor except that be- 
 stowed on him by God, of being the forerunner of the Messiah, 
 and rejoices to decrease in order that he may increase — thus 
 justifying the course which was so offensive to his disciples, and 
 settling the dispute in favor of the claims of Christ. 
 
 The argument from these facts is this : The dispute in question 
 was plainly a specific dispute concerning baptism, as practised by 
 Jesus and John, and not a general dispute on the subject of puri- 
 fication at large ; so that ^yirr^dig its^i (BwrrTia^oU is the true sense ; 
 and if it had been so written, the passage would have been 
 regarded by all as perfectly plain. 
 
 But instead of (SaitrKfij.ov, John has used xa^a^jrffxou, because 
 the sense is entirely the same. In other words, " a question con- 
 cerning baptism," and " a question concerning purification," were 
 at that time modes of expression perfectly equivalent ; that is, 
 ^aitTi(fii6g is a synonyme of xa^a^itf/xo^. 
 
 The only mode of escaping this result is to say, that as im- 
 mersion in water involves purification, and is a kind of purifica- 
 tion, so it -may have given rise to a question on the subject of 
 purification at large ; but to this I reply, that the whole scope of 
 the passage forbids such an idea. The question was not general 
 but specific, being caused by the concurrence of two claims to 
 baptize ; and so was the reply of John. 
 
 Moreover, to assume a general dispute on purification renders 
 
24 A QUESTION ABOUT PURIFYING. § 9. 
 
 the whole scope of the passage obscure ; as is evident from the 
 fact that those who have not seen that in this case xa^a^itfjxoj is a 
 synonyme of (BaimCixos, are much perplexed to see what a dispute 
 on purification in general, has to do with the facts of the case. 
 
 The origin of the dispute from the concurrence of two claims 
 to baptize, is obviously indicated by the particle ouv in v. 25, 
 showing undeniably that the events just narrated gave rise to the 
 question. This connexion does not appear in our translation, and 
 hence the course of thought is somewhat obscured. 
 
 It is plain, then, that independently of all theories or interests, 
 oca&oi^ic'iiog is used as synonymous with (SairrKJixog. Assigning 
 this meaning makes the passage natural, lucid, and simple ; to 
 assume a general debate on purification at large, renders it forced 
 and obscure, and the reply of John totally irrelevant. 
 
 And what reason is there for denying this conclusion ? None 
 but the fear of the result. No law of language requires it — no 
 existing fact — no previous probability. These, as we have 
 shown, are all decidedly the other way. It is then of no avail to 
 talk of possible senses. The question is not what is possible, 
 but what is a rational inference from a fair view of the facts of 
 the case ; and this I do not hesitate to say is, that (Sa'jfrKfixos and 
 xa&a^Kflx6g are synonymous. 
 
 I have spoken the more at large on this case, because it is so 
 rarely referred to in arguments on this question, and because the 
 light which it throws on the usus loquendi is peculiarly clear. 
 
 No word is more entirely independent of all reference to 
 modes and forms than xai^a^i Jw, and nothing can more clearly 
 show that ^a-TT'Ti^w had dropped all reference to form, and as- 
 sumed the sense to purify or cleanse, than making it a synonyme 
 of xa&a^i^(jj. And the evidence is the more striking, as it is inci- 
 dental and undesigned. It is as if we could stand on the plains 
 of Judea and hear them interchange BaTtTKfixos and xa6a^Kfy.6g as 
 synonymous words.* 
 
 * For ample confirmation of this view, by the Fathers, and others, see 
 & 67, No. 1 and 5. 
 
§ 9. PROPHECIES OLD TESTAMENT. 25 
 
 But if this is the force of the word in one instance as a re- 
 ligious rite, then it is its force in all similar cases. 
 
 § 9. Prophecies — Old Testament. 
 
 This view alone fully explains the existing expectation that the 
 Messiah would baptize. 
 
 That the Messiah should immerse is nowhere foretold ; but 
 that he should purify, is often and fully predicted. 
 
 But especially is this foretold in that last and prominent prophecy 
 of Malachi (iii. 1 — 3), which was designed to fill the eye and the 
 mind of the nation, until he came. 
 
 He is here presented to the mind in all his majesty and power, 
 but amid all other ideas that of purifying is most prominent. He 
 was above all things to purify and purge, and that with power so 
 great, that ievf could endure the fiery day. Who may abide the 
 day of his coming, and who shall stand when he appeareth ? 
 
 Suppose now the word /^a'Trr/^w to mean as I affirm — the whole 
 nation are expecting the predicted purifier ; all at once the news 
 goes forth that a great purifier has appeared, and that all men 
 flock to him and are purified in the Jordan. How natural the in- 
 ference ! The great purifier so long foretold, has at last appear- 
 ed, and how natural the embassy of the Priests and Levites to in- 
 quire who art thou ? and when he denied that he was the Mes- 
 siah, or either of his expected attendants, how natural the in- 
 quiry, why purifiest thou then ? It is his work — of him it is 
 foretold, why dost thou intrude into his place and do his work ? 
 
 In view of these facts I do not hesitate to believe most fully, 
 that the idea which came up before the mind of the Jews when 
 the words Iwavv>]^ o (^aitridrrig were used, was not, John the im- 
 merser, or John the dipper, but John the purifier, a name pecu- 
 liarly appropriate to him as a reformer — as puritan was to our 
 ancestors, and for the same reason. 
 
 This view has to my own mind the self-evidencing power of 
 truth, for there is not the slightest presumption against it ; all 
 probable evidence is in its favor ; and it explains and harmonizes 
 
 2 
 
26 BAPTISRI OF WATER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. § 10. 
 
 the facts of the case as no other view does. Indeed I can never 
 read the account of John's baptism, and his various replies, with- 
 out feeling that this passage from Malachi gives color to them 
 all.* This idea I shall consider more at large in the following 
 section. 
 
 § 10. Baptism of Water and the Holy Spirit. 
 
 The contrast made by John between his own baptism and that 
 of Christ, illustrates and confirms the same view. 
 
 This contrast exists in three particulars — the subject, the 
 agent, and the means. 
 
 In the case of John, the subject was the body — in the case of 
 Christ, the mind. 
 
 In the case of John, the agent was material, i. e. a man — in 
 the case of Christ, the agent was the Holy Spirit. In the case of 
 John, the means were water — in the case of Christ, the truth and 
 the emotions of God. 
 
 Now the idea to purify is perfectly adapted to illustrate and 
 carry out such a contrast, but to immerse is not. 
 
 This sense is never transferred to the mind, in any language, 
 so far as* I know, to indicate anything like the effects of the 
 agency of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Where oppressive, crushing, painful, or injurious influences are 
 denoted, it is so transferred — as i^v^iaig (p^ovritfiv (Bz^aitnd^jAvog rhv 
 vouv. — Chrysosiom. fSa^vTaraig aixa^Tiaig (SsQwn'TKfi^svoi. — Idem. 
 'jroWoTg xv^acfi cr^a/ixaTwv ^s^aitTid^ihou — Idem. But this does 
 not denote the peculiar and appropriate effects of the agency of 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 But the sense to purify, can be with ease applied to body 
 or mind, to human agents or to the Holy Spirit, to water or to the 
 truth and divine influence. 
 
 How simple and natural the statement ! " I indeed purify you 
 with water — but he shall purify you with the Holy Spirit." I per- 
 
 * See § 67, No. 2, for an unanswerable defence of this view, from the 
 Fathers. 
 
§ 10. BAPTISM OF WATER AND THE HOLY SPIRIT. 27 
 
 form an external and symbolical rite, by which the body is 
 cleansed with water, but he shall perform a higher cleansing, or 
 that in which the mind itself is purified by the Spirit of God. 
 
 And how harsh, how forced, how unnatural to say, I immerse 
 you in the Holy Spirit. In fine, such a use of language to de- 
 note purification is entirely foreign to all the laws of the human 
 mind. 
 
 Indeed so much is the force of this felt, that in this part of the 
 antithesis many resort to a new modification of the idea, and 
 maintain that it means to imbue largely, to overwhelm with di- 
 vine influences. 
 
 But this destroys the whole symmetry of the antithesis. John 
 does not mean to say I imbue you largely with water, but either, 
 I immerse you in water, or I cleanse you with it, and whichever 
 sense we adopt in one part of the antithesis, we ought to retain in 
 the other. 
 
 But when the agent is the Holy Spirit, the object the human 
 spirit, the means spiritual, and the end purity, the sense immer- 
 sion is out of the question. Nothing but the most violent impro- 
 bability of the sense to purify, can authorize us to reject it in such 
 a case. But no such improbability exists ; the probability is 
 entirely in its favor. Purify, then, in any view of the subject, 
 must here be the sense. 
 
 This view is still further confirmed by comparing the language 
 of John with the passage from Malachi already quoted. It seems 
 to be at all times his great desire to lead them to apply those 
 words to Christ, and not to himself. As if he had said, " Do not 
 think that I am the great purifier spoken of in those words. Af- 
 ter me Cometh one mightier than I, the latchet of whose shoes I 
 am unworthy to loose. He shall purify you with the Holy 
 Ghost and with fire — whose fan is in his hand, and he shall 
 thoroughly purge (Siaxa&a^isT) his floor," etc. But all the force, 
 correspondence, and mutual illumination of these passages, de- 
 pend on giving to the word (Saitri^c^ the sense which I claim. 
 
28 SACRIFICIAL SENSE OF BAIITIZO. § 12. 
 
 § 11. Baptism of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 In 1 Cor. xii. 13, the Holy Spirit is directly said to baptize, 
 and in this case all external acts are of course excluded, and 
 purify is the only appropriate sense. 
 
 " For by one Spirit we are all baptized into one body, and have 
 been all made to drink into one Spirit." 
 
 If any shall say that admitting to the church by the external 
 rite is here meant, I reply, that is never performed by the Spirit, 
 but by man. But this baptism is as much an internal work of 
 the Holy Spirit, as the causing to drink into one Spirit, which is 
 not external, but an internal and real work of the Spirit. 
 
 But to immerse in water is not the work of the Holy Spirit, 
 nor is it his work to immerse the mind, but to purify the mind is. 
 Hence, not an external union to the visible Church, but a real 
 union to the true and spiritual body of Christ is here meant, one 
 which is produced by the purification of the mind, not by the im- 
 mersion of the body. Hence to describe the operations of the 
 Holy Spirit in uniting us to the body of Christ, purify is adapted 
 — immerse is not.* 
 
 § 12. Sacrificial Sense of (Swn'Ti^cjj. 
 
 (SaifTi^cj) and xa^a^j^w are so similarly used in connexion with 
 the forgiveness of sins, as decidedly to favor the idea that they 
 are in a religious use synonymous. 
 
 The purification effected by the Holy Spirit is of two kinds — (1) 
 a purification from spiritual defilement ; (2) a deliverance from 
 the guilt of sin, i. e. liability to be punished, and from a sense of 
 guilt, through the atonement. 
 
 It is through the atonement that pardon is given ; and through 
 the Holy Spirit conviction of sin is produced ; and by him also a 
 sense of guilt is taken away in view of the atonement ; and in 
 this sense he is said to cleanse from sin by the blood of Christ. 
 
 * For full confirmation of this view see § 67, No. 3, and § 96. 
 
§ 12. SACRIFICIAL SENSE OF BAriTlZi2. 29 
 
 This kind of purification may be called legal, as it relates to 
 guilt, forgiveness, and an atonement. The other kind of purifi- 
 cation may be called moral, inasmuch as it removes the unholy 
 and impure feelings and habits of the mind, and produces in their 
 place those that are holy and pure. 
 
 Both kinds of purification are expressed by the same word 
 xa^a^j^w. Its use to denote legal purification or expiation is 
 very extensive. It denotes, (1) to make atonement. As in 
 Ex. xxix. 37, and xxx. 10. " Thou shalt make atonement for 
 the altar," " Aaron shall make atonement ; Sept. xa^a^i^w, Heb. 
 
 (2.) To forgive, Ex. xx. 7. " The Lord will not liold him 
 guiltless (ou xaScc^isT) that taketh his name in vain." Ex. xxiv. 7. 
 " That will by no means clear the guilty." Deut. v. 11. — Idem. 
 In these and similar cases the Greek xa^a^i^w corresponds to the 
 Hebrew {i;;d5 to forgive, to absolve from punishment, and is used 
 in a sense strictly legal, and does not refer to moral purity at all. 
 So in 1 John i. 7. " The blood of Jesus Christ his Son cleanseth 
 us from all sin ;" and v. 9, "He is faithful and just to forgive us 
 our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness." In these 
 cases the idea of atonement and forgiveness by it, are involved in 
 xa&a^i^c), and in Heb. the blood of Christ is said to purge the con- 
 science from dead works, implying a deliverance from a sense of 
 guilt and a sense of pardoned sin. Ka^a^i^w is here used ; hence 
 an atonement is called xa^a^K^p^s in Heb. i. 3. When he had 
 by himself purged our sins (xa^a^KffjLov "Tfooitfccixsvoj), he sat down 
 on the right hand of the majesty on high. In this case the atone- 
 ment, Jca^a^K^ixoV, was made first, and then applied to cleanse by 
 the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Nor is this usage confined to Scriptural Greek ; we find that 
 when Croesus exempted Adrastus from liability to punishment for 
 killing his brother, it is said |x/v ixa6rj^s — he purified him — and 
 when Adrastus requested such exemption, xa6ap(flov sSkro he re- 
 quested expiation — or exemption from liability to punishment. 
 Among the Jews this kind of purification was indicated by itJj ap- 
 
30 SACRIFICIAL SENSE OF BAIITIZO. § 12. 
 
 propriate external forms, of which the sprinkling of blood was 
 the most common — if not the only one. Besides this, as all know, 
 xa^a^i'^w is used abundantly to denote moral purification or its 
 emblem, ceremonial purification — of which no examples are 
 needed. 
 
 Hence to a Jew it was natural to apply to a rite symbolizing 
 the forgiveness of sins the term xa&a^Kfixos, or some synonymous 
 word. 
 
 Between immersion, and the forgiveness of sins, no such as- 
 sociations had ever been established. For all the remissions of 
 sin under the old ritual, were by blood, and hence Paul, Heb. ix. 
 19-2.3, after speaking of the sprinkling of blood upon the 
 people and the book, the tabernacle and the vessels, says, xai 
 (f-)(s5ov iv aT^au •navra xaQa^i^srai xardl rov vo^ov, xai XW^<V ai/xa- 
 rsx-)(y(fiois ou ylvsrai acpstfig. 
 
 " Almost all things are by the law purified by blood, and with- 
 out shedding of hlood there is no remission of sins. ^^ Here a rite 
 denoting remission of sins, ly sprinkling of hlood, is spoken of as 
 a xa&a^Kf^iog, a purification. But under the law, the forgiveness 
 of sins was never symbolized .by an immersion of the person 
 forgiven. Hence, if any word is used to denote a rite symbolical 
 of the forgiveness of sins, in the same way as xada^Kf^xog, it is 
 probably used in the same sense. But (Sa'Trri^oj and its deriva- 
 tives are so used. Mark i. 4. " John preached the Baptism of 
 repentance for the forgiveness of sins,'" — so in Luke iii. 3. Also, 
 Acts iii. 38. " Repent and be baptized every one of you in the 
 name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive 
 the Holy Ghost." 
 
 Here is a rite, symbolizing the forgiveness of sins. The com- 
 mon name for rites of this import is xa^apitfjixo^. ^airri^cj^ is used 
 to denote the rite. Immersion had never previously been used 
 for any such purpose. How reasonable, then, the conclusion 
 that foairrKfixog has the same sense as the word, whose familiar 
 office it performs. 
 
 But though Baptism in these places relates chiefly to legal 
 
§ 12. SACRIFICIAL SENSE OF BAIITIZa 31 
 
 purification, in others it relates as clearly to moral purifica- 
 tion, and in this respect also corresponds with xa&api^u), which, 
 as we have seen, includes both kinds of purification, legal and 
 moral. 
 
 To sum up all in a few words, ^WTfri^u is used in connexion 
 with both kinds of purification, legal and moral, of the con- 
 science and of the heart ; and the language most commonly 
 applied to the first is xa^a/pw or xa^apj^w — and this is always in 
 the ritual symbolized by sprinkling and by blood. Hence as 
 jSa<7rr»^w is used in reference to the same kinds of purification 
 with xa^api^w, and as it stands in the same relations with it to the 
 forgiveness of sins, it is highly probable that it has the same 
 sense. By giving it a meaning so extensive as purify, it is 
 adapted to fulfil all its relations. By confining it to a meaning so 
 limited as to immerse, it is unfitted for at least one half the rela- 
 tions in which it stands.* 
 
 * See §§ 25, 26, 53, 54, for a full defence of this view. 
 
[CHAPTER II. 
 
 § 13. Mosaic Purifications. 
 
 In Heb. ix. 10, a fair view of the scope and connexion of the 
 passage requires (3citri(i[}.oi to be used as synonymous with 
 
 In this case the word does not indeed relate to the ordinance of 
 Christian Baptism, but to Mosaic purifications. Yet it is still a 
 religious use of the word ; moreover, it is applied with reference 
 to those very usages, of which I have spoken, as adapted to cause 
 the word [SuirTi^u to pass from its original, to the secondary 
 sense, to jmrify. Hence it is an example of great weight in the 
 case, and, as might have been expected, it has been strongly con- 
 tested. But with how little reason I shall endeavor to show. 
 
 The scope of chapters 8, 9, and 10, is to show that the purifica- 
 tions, legal and moral, provided by Christ for the conscience and 
 the heart, had in themselves a real efficacy, and were, therefore, 
 entirely superior to those of the Mosaic dispensation, which re- 
 lated only to the body, and could produce no purity but such as 
 was merely external and symbolical. Let now the following 
 things be noticed. 
 
 1. Those things only are spoken of in the whole discussion, 
 which have a reference to action on the worshippers — that is, the 
 whole passage relates to the effects of the Mosaic ritual entirely 
 on persons, and not on things. The gifts, the sacrifices, the blood 
 of sprinkling, the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, all re- 
 late to persons. 
 
 2. The /Sa-TT'Tjrfjxoi are spoken of as enjoined, as well as the 
 other rites. But of persons, no immersions at all are enjoined 
 under the Mosaic ritual. As this fact does not seem to have been 
 
§ 13. MOSAIC PURIFICATIONS. 33 
 
 noticed as it ought, and as many assume the contrary, it is neces- 
 sary to furnish the proof of this assertion. 
 
 It lies in this fact, that no washing of persons is ever enjoined 
 by the word ^5^3, to immerse, even in a single instance, nor by any 
 word that denotes immersion — but as I think without exception 
 by the word yii'n, which denotes to wash or imrify, without any 
 reference to mode. 
 
 Those who read the English version might suppose that, where 
 the direction to bathe occurs, immersion is enjoined ; but in every 
 such case the original denotes only to wash. 
 
 I do not deny that where the washing of the body, or of the 
 flesh, or of all the flesh, is enjoined, it would probably be done, if 
 most convenient, by immersion or bathing. But I affirm that 
 there is no washing of the person enjoined in the whole ritual, 
 which could not be performed wherever there was water enough 
 to wash the body all over, in any way, even though bathing or 
 immersion was out of the question. Why should it not be so ? 
 Could Moses suppose that at all times, and in all circumstances, 
 while in the desert, during journeys, at home and abroad, every 
 man who became unclean, in various and numerous ways speci- 
 fied in the ritual, would be able to bathe or to immerse himself? 
 Even when best supplied with the means of bathing it could not 
 be expected, that every family, rich or poor, and however situated, 
 would be able to have a private bath. Nor could it be expected, 
 that every running stream or rivulet would be deep enough to 
 bathe in. But such was the benign regard of God to all these pos- 
 sible contingencies, that he did not enjoin immersion at all ; but 
 in some cases a total washing, such as could be performed in any 
 brook, or running stream, — or in any suitable vessel at home. 
 
 If any doubt whether this is the true view of the import of yni 
 let him take a Hebrew Concordance and trace it through the 
 whole of the Old Testament, and he will have abundant proof. 
 He will find it used to denote the washing of anything, in 
 any way, — of the feet, the hands, the face, the body, or the 
 
34 MOSAIC PURIFICATIONS. § 13. 
 
 mind. Its translation in the Septuagint denotes how wide its 
 range of meaning is ; — for it is at one time Xouw, at another viVrw, 
 and at another "ttXuvw, just as circumstances may seem to require. 
 If ever it is applied in cases where bathing was probably per- 
 formed, the idea depends not at all on the word, but on the cir- 
 cumstances of the case. So a Baptist writer thinks that, in the 
 case of Pharaoh's daughter, Ex. ii. 5, the word denotes bathing. 
 It may be true that the daughter of Pharaoh did, as a matter of 
 factj bathe herself, — but all our evidence of it lies in the fact, that 
 she went down to the Nile, and not at all in the word yn^, and 
 therefore our translators have properly rendered it wash. 
 
 I would quote passages to illustrate all these assertions, did not 
 the proof lie so plainly on the surface of the whole usage of the 
 word that I do not suppose any one, who has investigated the sub- 
 ject, will think of denying it. Let any one, who desires to see a 
 specimen of proof, examine, in the original. Gen. xviii. 4, and xliii. 
 31, Lev. xiv. 9, Ex. xxix. 17, Is. iv. 4, Ps. xxvi. 6 and Ixxiii. 
 13, Is. i. 16. 
 
 Nor is the washing of the clothes, so often spoken of, enjoined 
 by a word denoting immersion. In all such cases, D^S is used, 
 which denotes merely to wash, a word commonly confined to the 
 washing of clothes. But it is sometimes also applied to the wash- 
 ing of the mind, as in Ps. li. 4, 9 (English version Ps. li. 2, 7), 
 Jer. iv. 14; ii. 22. 
 
 It is perfectly plain, therefore, that, whatever was the practice 
 of the Jews, no immersions of the person were enjoined, and the 
 whole Mosaic ritual, as to personal ablution, could be fulfilled to 
 the letter, without a single immersion. I do not doubt that im- 
 mersions were common, but nothing but washings of the body was 
 enjoined — and immersions fulfilled the law, not because they were 
 immersions, but solely because they were washings. Of course, 
 as yn^ had only the sense to wash, even in case of bathing, 
 (Bairri^ijj would tend to the same. 
 
 8. Even where immersion was convenient, and, k priori, pro- 
 bable, it was not deemed essential to complete and thorough 
 
§ 13. MOSAIC PURIFICATIONS. 35 
 
 purification, or to an entire washing of the body. This I infer 
 from the account given in Tobit vi. 2, of the washing of the 
 young man. We are told that he went down to the river — To Ss 
 m'aida^iov xarsfSr] — for what ? To immerse himself, of course, the 
 advocates of immersion will reply. Whole volumes of argument, 
 as we all know, depend on going down to a river. But how was 
 it ? did he go down to immerse himself ? Hear the writer : 
 xccTsfSri 'Tfs ^ix\v(f a.(fSai. He went down to wash himself all around, 
 — ^just as a man stands in the stream and throws the water all 
 over his body, and washes himself by friction ; a mode of wash- 
 ing much more thorough than a mere immersion, and corre- 
 sponding much more nearly to the import of the word y'n'i 
 
 Let it not be supposed that I regard this as an actual fact. 
 The story may be true or false, and yet be equally in point to 
 illustrate the ideas of the age in which the writer lived. If he 
 was a Jew, as all admit, and was writing of Jews, it is enough. 
 He would of course write in accordance with the views of his day. 
 He may indeed, after his irs^ixXvcfig, be supposed to have immersed 
 himself. But he is not represented as going down for an 
 immersion, — but for such a washing as could be performed in 
 any stream, even though immersion was out of the question. I 
 regard the incidental testimony of a case like this, as of far more 
 worth than tlie formal testimony of the Rabbis of a later age, as 
 to the importance attached, by the Jews, to immersion, which 
 learned writers have so copiously adduced. For the testimony 
 of later Jews, as to the times preceding the fall of Jerusalem, 
 needs to be received with much doubt and suspicion. But on an 
 incidental statement of this kind, of so early a date, no reasonable 
 suspicion can rest. 
 
 4. The only immersions enjoined in the Mosaic law were im- 
 mersions of things to which no reference can be had here, — as 
 vessels, sacks, skins, etc. In this case no act was performed, 
 that directly affected the body of the worshipper, but only the thing 
 immersed. But in all this passage, Paul regards the ritual with 
 reference to its effects on the worshipper. In v. 9, he says, that 
 
36 BIOSAIC PURIFICATIONS. § 13. 
 
 these rites could not make the worshipper, tov Xaris'uovra, perfect 
 as to the conscience. In v. 10, he assigns the reason why. 
 They consisted only in services which could affect the body, 
 ^jxaiwjxao'i da^xhg — and these related to meats and drinks, and 
 divers purifications. The xa/ before ^jxajwfxatfi Ca^xo^, ought to 
 be omitted, as it is by Griesbach and others ; so that those words 
 shall not denote other ordinances, but stand in apposition to 
 /S^wixatfi and 'Kd\i.a(ii, and ^laqjo^oi^ /3a'rTi(7'(xo(^, to denote the imper- 
 fection of them all, because they affect the body alone and not the 
 mind. Hence it is perfectly plain that no reference can be had 
 here to the immersions of inanimate things, but only to the puri- 
 fications of persons. Indeed the whole scope of the passage for- 
 bids the idea of such immersions. What could any one think 
 that the immersion of vessels of earth, or wood, had to do with 
 purifying the conscience or the heart of a worshipper ? A wash- 
 ing of the body, or a sprinkling of blood, or of the ashes of a 
 heifer, might seem to purify the unclean — but not surely the im- 
 mersion of vessels of earth or wood, or of sacks and skins. To 
 refer here, then, to such things, is totally unnatural, and entirely 
 out of the train of thought. 
 
 5. Besides the purifications of the person are §ia(po^oi, diverse, 
 various ; — but the immersions of things are not, either in act, or 
 circumstances, or end. If vessels or things became unclean, in 
 the cases specified, they were all immersed, and all alike — and 
 all for the same end. What various immersions here ! 
 
 On the other hand, the purifications of men were exceedingly 
 numerous, and of various kinds. Some were legal and sacrificial, 
 relating to the atonement, and made by blood. Others were 
 moral, relating to regeneration and purity of heart, as symbolized, 
 sometimes by various kinds of washing, and at other times by 
 sprinkling. To all these various kinds, reference is had in the 
 context. Purification by blood, in ch. ix. 7, 12, 13, 14, 19, 20, 
 21, 22, and ch. x. 1, 2 — and in numerous other places. Puri- 
 fication by water, and by sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer, ch. ix. 
 13, and x. 22. Why should the Apostle leave purifications so 
 
§ 13. MOSAIC PURIFICATIONS. 37 
 
 various and numerous as these, and so entirely in point, and speak 
 of a simple regulation as to the immersion of cups and vessels, 
 etc., things altogether foreign to the scope of the passage, as 
 Siacpo^Qi ^a'TtrKfiJ.oi, that were unable to make perfect the worship- 
 per ? No man who had not a theory to support could bring him- 
 self to do such violence to all the laws of interpretation in a case 
 so plain. 
 
 6. To conclude, — to give (SocjrrKfixol the sense xa&a^i(f^oi, fits 
 the word to include all the kinds of purification spoken of in the 
 context. For, as we have seen, xa^a^j^w has an established legal 
 and sacrificial use in all cases of atonement by blood. And we 
 have also seen ^a'Tm'^w standing in relations of the same kind. 
 Now in this passage the idea of purification by blood greatly pre- 
 dominates, as may be seen by examining the passages just referred 
 to ; and yet the idea of moral purification is also most clearly 
 presented to the mind ; — and no sense but the one assigned gives 
 the word the scope necessary to take in both kinds. But that 
 does, and it thus fully meets all the exigencies of the case. It is 
 a sense fully to the purpose of Paul ; it is natural, simple, easy, 
 obvious, and gives a richness and fulness to all his ideas. The 
 idea of immersions is out of the scope and spirit of the passage ; 
 — it is forced and unnatural : it is unfitted for the purposes of 
 Paul, and narrows down his ideas to topics totally foreign to the 
 subject, and has but one solitary advantage — it aids in escaping 
 an unwelcome result. 
 
 What evidence is there against all this mass of presumptive 
 reasoning? Does any previous probability, any law of lang^^ge 
 or of the mind, anything in the context, demand the idea of im- 
 mersions ? Nothing of this kind. All is the other way. The 
 meaning claimed is highly probable, a priori, and the whole scope 
 of the passage tends to establish it. By all laws of sound phi- 
 lology, then, it is here the sense.* 
 
 * See § 53 and § 57, No. 5. 
 
38 JEWISH PURIFICATION. § 14. 
 
 § 14. Jewish Purification. 
 
 In Mark vii. 4, 8, and in Luke xi. 38, xada^i^w is the natural 
 and obvious sense of/Sa-yr'Tj^w, and Jca^a^KT/xo^ of /Sa-TTTjfl'jxo^. 
 
 1 . This sense fulfils perfectly all the exigencies of the passages. 
 I know indeed that it is said by some, that in Mark there is a rise 
 in the idea from the lesser washing of the hands, which was com- 
 mon before all meals, to the greater washing implied in the im- 
 mersion of the body after coming from the market. But on the 
 other hand, there is simply a change from the specific to the general 
 and indefinite. They always wash their hands before meals, and 
 when they return from market they, in addition to this, purify 
 themselves (as the nature of the case may require) before they 
 eat. In the latter case, Bloomfield remarks, it denotes a washing 
 of the body, but not an immersion. The sense, xa^a^j^w, also 
 more naturally suggests the reply of Christ in Luke. " Now do 
 ye Pharisees make clean (xa^a^i Jste) the outside of the cup and 
 the platter," etc. — where jGa-yrn'^w seems to suggest xa^apj^w. 1 
 admit indeed that the object of immersion might suggest the same 
 idea. But such associations of thought are more likely, the more 
 obvious the similarity in the meaning of the words. But, not to 
 rely on this, I remark, 
 
 2. Nothing in the context demands the sense, immerse, and 
 powerful reasons forbid it. 
 
 All must confess that purification is the only idea involved in 
 the subject of thought. Now it is no more likely that a want of 
 im^rsioji offended the Pharisee, Luke xi. 38, in the case of 
 Christ, than it is that this was the ground of offence in the case 
 of the disciples, Mark vii. It does not appear that Christ had 
 been to the market. Nor is it likely at all that an immersion was 
 expected, as a matter of course, before every meal, even on 
 coming from a crowd. The offence in the case of the disciples 
 was that they had not washed their hands. An immersion was 
 not expected of them, though they had been in crowds. Why 
 should it be of Christ ? 
 
§ 14. JEWISH PURIFICATION. 39 
 
 Kuinoel, on this passage, well remarks, that the existence of 
 any such custom of regular immersion before all meals cannot be 
 proved. And the opinions and statements of Jewish writers, in 
 after ages, are of very little weight. The case narrated in Tobit 
 has, in my mind, more weight in throwing light on actual 
 opinions than a host of such more modern wri|Me. It teaches us 
 clearly that, even in cases where it was possible, they attached 
 no peculiar importance to the form of immersion, and thought 
 only of a suitable washing. How much more is this likely to be 
 true of a purification, which the Pharisee seemed to expect, as a 
 matter of course, before every meal ? 
 
 3. But above all, the immersion of the couches on which they 
 reclined at meals is out of the question. That this is the mean- 
 ing of xXivwv here, the whole context shows, and all impartial 
 critics allow ; and these were large enough for three to recline 
 upon at their ease. And are we to believe that the Pharisees, 
 and all the Jews, were in the habit of immersing these, just 
 to avoid the inference that /Sa-Trn'^w means to purify ? What if 
 remarkable instances of superstition in particular sects can be 
 pointed out 1 Is it likely that a whole nation, all the Jews, ever 
 held to a practice like this ? That they should purify them with 
 various and uncommanded rites is altogether probable. But that 
 they should immerse them is totally incredible.* 
 
 Dr. Carson seems to feel this point keenly, and yet manfully 
 maintains his ground. He says that he will maintain an immer- 
 sion until its impossibility is proved, and suggests that the couches 
 might be so made as to be taken to pieces for this end ! He has 
 proved, he says, the meaning of the word, — the Holy Ghost 
 affirms that the couches were immersed, — and to call this absurd 
 is to charge the Holy Ghost with uttering an absurdity ; — and 
 he is filled with horror at the thought, and warns his opponents to 
 beware of so fearful a crime, and he has a long dissertation on 
 the infidel and Unitarian tendencies of allowing difficulties to 
 
 * See § 67, No. 6. 
 
40 PURIFICATION BY THE ASHES OF A HEIFER. § 15. 
 
 shake our faith in the assertions of God. But what is all this to 
 the point ? The question is not, Will we believe that the couches 
 were immersed if the Holy Ghost says so ? — but this, Has he said 
 so ? And what has Dr. Carson proved ? Why truly that, in 
 other instances, (Bcck'tI^u) means immerse. But does this prove 
 that it means so J|ere ? Does it even create a probability that it 
 does ? Not at an. The probability, as we have shown, is all 
 the other way. Hence the demand to prove an impossibility of 
 immersion is altogether unreasonable. And it is against his own 
 practice in other cases. Does he not admit that /3a,'7rrw means to 
 dye or color, when it is applied to the beard and hair ? And is 
 it impossible to dip these ? Improbable it surely is, but not half 
 so much so as the immersion of couches. 
 
 The fact is, that the whole reasoning against the sense claimed 
 
 ' DO 
 
 for iSwTfri^u in these passages, rests on false principles. It as- 
 sumes a violent improbability of the meaning in question, and 
 resorts to all manner of shifts, to prove the possibility of immersion, 
 as though that were all that the case required, whilst the truth is 
 that no such improbability exists, but one directly the reverse, 
 and the whole scope of the passage demands the meaning claimed, 
 that is, to purify. 
 
 Were it necessary, I would remark more in detail on the 
 statements of Prof Ripley, as to the dipping of hands, and the 
 Jewish rules concerning couches, as quoted by Dr. Gill. It is 
 sufficient to remark that these ideas are the result of the inge- 
 nuity of later ages, and the existence of any such rules or prac- 
 tices in the days of Christ, is totally devoid of proof, and even of 
 probability. 
 
 § 15. Purification by the Ashes of a Heifer. 
 
 In the case so often quoted from Sirach xxxi. 25, /3a'7rT»^w re- 
 quires the sense, xa^a^i'^w. The passage is this : f3a<7rTi<^6iJ.svos 
 airo vsx^oiJ xa< 'Tr'aXiv aifro^svog dvrov, tj wcpsXiio's tw Xout^oj dvTou ; 
 He that is cleansed from a dead body, and again toucheth it, of 
 what profit to him is his cleansing ? 
 
§ 15. PURIFICATION BY THE ASHES OF A HEIFER. 41 
 
 Here I remark : 
 
 1. The sense, xa^a^'^w, purify, suits the preposition diro, — im- 
 merse does not. It is natural to speak of purifying or cleansing 
 from, but not of immersing from, a dead body. 
 
 2. No immersion, in the case of touching a dead body, was 
 enjoined, but simply a washing of the body, so as to leave room 
 for various modes in various circumstances, and it is not likely 
 that this would be spoken of as an immersion. 
 
 3. The rite of purification from a dead body was complex, 
 and no import of the word ISw^fii^u, but the one claimed, is 
 adapted to include the whole. By far the most important part of 
 the rite was the sprinkling of the water, in which had been put 
 the ashes of the heifer. Concerning this it is said. Num. xix. 13, 
 that whosoever shall not purify himself with it, after touching a 
 dead body, " that soul shall be cut off from Israel, because the 
 water of separation was not sprinkled on him." Of the washing 
 no such thing is said, and Paul, Heb. ix. 13, refers to the sprink- 
 ling, as if it included the part of the rite on which the effect 
 mainly, if not entirely, depends. It is the ashes of a heifer, 
 sprinkling the unclean, that is spoken of as sanctifying to the 
 purification of the flesh, — ayia^si <z'fog tyjv tyjs (fa^xos xa^aeoTYiTa. 
 Of course the writer could not mean to exclude so essential a part 
 of the rite as this, nay its very essence. Nor could he call it an 
 immersion. It is a sprinkling. It can purifj^, but it cannot im- 
 merse. But the sense, xa^a^i Jw, can include both the sprinkling 
 and the washing : — for, taken together, they purify, and this is 
 the complex result of the whole rite, and nothing else. If any 
 object that it is not consistent to apply Xour^w to a complex opera- 
 tion like this,* I ask them, how then is it consistent to apply it to 
 the blood of Christ, which is spoken of as the blood of sprinkling ? 
 And yet we are spoken of as washed from our sins in his own 
 blood, where Xouw is used. The truth is, that the sense of Xo!;w is 
 general too, and denotes merely a washing or cleansing, without 
 
 * Aovrpdv is applied to clinic baptism by sprinkling or perfusion. See § GG. 
 
42 PURIFICATION BY THE ASHES OF A HEIFER. § 15. 
 
 respect to mode. Besides, an actual washing is a part of the 
 complex rite. 
 
 The effort of Prof. Ripley to establish the sense, bathing, from 
 the word Xour^o'v, is vain. No fact is more notorious than that 
 Xoucaj, of itself, does not mean to bathe. In this respect it is as un- 
 limited to any mode as y^^^ ; so much so that the vessels, in the 
 vestibules of ancient churches, for washing the hands, were called 
 XovTYj^ss, as well as viitrrj^sg. One of the Fathers, as quoted by 
 Suicer, says Xovrrj^sg vSaros 'tts'ttXtj^wixsvoi, stand before the gate of 
 the church, that you may wash your hands (vin^tj?), so without 
 the church, sit the poor, that by alms you may wash (-TrXuv/jj) the 
 hands of your soul. I do not quote this passage for the sake of 
 its theology, but to show that Xo'uw and its derivatives mean sim- 
 ply to wash or to cleanse, and not to bathe, any more than the 
 Latin lavo. Circumstances may show that bathing is meant, but 
 the word itself does not. 
 
 Dr. Carson says that all reasoning from this passage proceeds 
 on the assumption that the Jews had made no additions to the rite. 
 Not so. It proceeds upon the assumption that they had not omitted 
 its very essence, the sprinkling with the ashes of a heifer, and that 
 they would not call this an immersion, but a purification, as in fact 
 it was ; and that as no immersion was enjoined, but simply wash- 
 ing, so the sense, immersion, is not to be assumed without necessity 
 and without proof, and against the whole probability of the case. 
 
 That the Jews did take the view of this rite that I claim, is 
 plain from the account given of it by Philo. He directs the whole 
 attention to sprinkling and nothing else. He says, " Moses does 
 this philosophically, for most others are sprinkled with unmixed 
 water, some with sea or river water, others with water drawn 
 from the fountains. But Moses employed ashes for this purpose. 
 Then, as to the manner, they put them into a vessel, pour on 
 water, — then moisten branches of hyssop with the mixture (ix rou 
 x^aixaros (Sa'TfTovrag urftfo'TTou xXadovg), then sprinkle it upon those 
 who are to be purified" (roTg xa^ai^ojuisvojj). And this account was 
 written after the passage in question. Here we note, in passing, 
 
§ 16. PURIFICATION OF JUDITH. 43 
 
 a use of (SccTtrc^ with ix, at war with the idea to dip, and consistent 
 only with the idea to moisten or wet. 
 
 Now for what reason are we to set aside probabilities like 
 these ? Merely to avoid so simple, natural, and probable a con- 
 clusion, as that /Sa-TfTj^w sometimes means simply to purify, as in 
 this case it most clearly does.* 
 
 § 16. Purification of Jiidilh. 
 
 The case of Judith also sustains the same view. In Judith 
 xii. 7, we are told that " she remained in the camp of Holofernes 
 three days, and by night (that is, on each night) she went out to 
 the valley of Bethulia and purified or washed herself, in the 
 camp, at the fountain of water." Ila^sjxsjvsv sv tv} ir'a^sixISoXyj ^jfxs^aj 
 T^sis, xoLi s^S'iro^ivSTo xajTo. vuxra 2\c, tt^v cpa^ayya BsruXova xai 
 
 Here we notice that the purification in question was performed 
 in the camp, and at or near the fountain — and for three nights in 
 succession. In narrating the case of Tobit, a man at a river, and 
 away from all observation, no reference to immersion was made. 
 But here a female, in a camp, and at or near a fountain, it is 
 insisted, did immerse herself, three nights in succession. We 
 are told of her courage and faith, and of possible bathing places 
 near the spring, and all for what ? To avoid so obvious a con- 
 clusion as that the writer merely means to say that she purified, 
 or washed herself, without reference to the mode. In the case of 
 Susannah, we are told that she desired to wash herself, Xo6(fa(f6af, 
 in the garden, because it was warm. Here she could shut 
 the doors and be alone, v. 17. Yet the writer says merely 
 wash. But in the case of Judith, even in a camp, he must needs 
 insist, it seems, on the mode, and that mode must be immersion. 
 And what reason is there for all this ? Is not the sense xa^a^i^w, 
 a priori, probable ? Yes. Does it not fulfil all the exigencies of 
 
 * Cyril of Alexandria settles this question, for he expressly calls purify- 
 ing by ashes baptizing. See § 53. 
 
44 RELATIONS TO THE SYSTEM OF WRITERS. § 17. 
 
 the case ? Yes. Was it of any importance to specify the mode ? 
 No. Do the circumstances of the case call for immersion ? No ; 
 they seem at first sight entirely to forbid it ; and nothing but skill 
 in suggesting possibilities can at all remove the impression. In 
 fact, the circumstances of the case have led the vast majority of 
 minds in all ages, to feel that immersion is not the meaning here, — 
 and that to purify or to wash is. Hence it is that Dr. Carson, in his 
 arduous attempt to prove that /Sot-Trrj^w never means to wash, ir- 
 respective of mode, is obliged to admit that he has " all the 
 lexicographers and commentators" against him. p. 79. 
 
 § 17. Relations to the System of Writers. 
 
 No contrary probability, or usage, can be established from the 
 writers of the New Testament age, or of the preceding age, who 
 used the Alexandrine Greek. It will be noticed that the argu- 
 ment thus far is specific, and relates to a religious usage, pro- 
 duced at a particular time, and by particular circumstances 
 definitely and clearly marked. Now to refute this argument, it 
 is of no use to go to writers who lived and wrote entirely out of 
 this range of circumstances and ideas. It could only prove that, 
 in other circumstances, another usage of the word did exist, and 
 this no one need deny. 
 
 But it is very noticeable that, in the very writers where alone 
 proof of an opposite religious usage, or even of a probability of it, 
 can reasonably be looked for, there is none to be found. It is in 
 these very writings that the whole current of probability, and 
 of usage, sets strongly the other way. 
 
 I do not deny that these writers do also use the word (Baifri^Uf 
 in other circumstances, and in a secular sense, to denote immer- 
 sion, sinking, overwhelming, or oppression. But this only proves 
 that the two usages did coexist ; just as Dr. Carson proves that 
 the two usages of ^ctirru) did coexist in Hippocrates, and that the 
 existence of the one did not disprove the existence of the other. 
 So, at least four meanings of the word spring co-exist, and yet no 
 one infers from one that the others do not exist. 
 
§ 17. RELATIONS TO THE SYSTEM OF WRITERS. 45 
 
 That the religious usage of these writers all sets one way, one 
 obvious and admitted fact may show. Dr. Carson admits that all 
 the lexicographers and commentators do assign to the word 
 /Sa-n'ri^u the unlimited sense to wash, or cleanse. Now on what 
 writers do they rely ? Beyond all dispute on the writers of 
 Alexandrine Greek, — the very writers who have furnished all the 
 facts on which this argument is based. And these writers, be it 
 noticed, furnish no presumption or usage the other way. Even 
 in those minuter shades of meaning, which are furnished by al- 
 lusion, comparison, or association of ideas, all things tend the same 
 way. So, in the account of the baptism of Paul, the sacrificial 
 reference of Baptism is plainly indicated, Acts xxii. 16 : " Arise 
 and be baptized, and wash away thy sins ('AvatfTa? ^ olt^tk^ ai xai 
 dit6\ov(fat rag aixa^rlag (fov), calling upon the name of the Lord." 
 Here we have faith in Christ, the washing away or pardon of 
 sins, and a purification intended to symbolize it. BccirrKfai, purify 
 thyself, or be purified bodily, — airoXovffai rag a^a^riag, wash 
 away thy sins, as to the mind, by calling on the name of the 
 Lord. Here the antithesis and correspondence are beautiful and 
 complete, and one seems naturally to suggest the other. So the 
 case in Peter iii. 21, where he speaks of baptism as saving us, is 
 far more natural and beautiful, if we adopt this sense, for he 
 seems to think that, if he left the word (BairrKfixa unguarded, he 
 might be taken to mean the external purification of the body. 
 But as this does not save us, and as nothing but the purification 
 of the mind does, he guards himself and says, I do not mean the 
 putting away of the filth of the flesh, by the purification of which 
 I speak, but the answer of a good conscience towards God. 
 Hence, too, the legal or sacrificial sense lies upon the very face 
 of the passage, — for it is the purification of the conscience by 
 atoning blood, to which he refers, and not to an external washing 
 at all ; and I need not say to any one who can feel the nice cor- 
 respondencies of words, how much more beautiful and clear the 
 whole passage becomes by assigning to ^airrKjixa the sense of a 
 spiritual purification, by the blood of Christ, which Peter affirms 
 
46 RELATIONS TO THE SYSTEM OF WRITERS. § 17. 
 
 that it has. On the subject, however, of the external washing in 
 this case, I shall speak more at large under another head. 
 
 So too the account given by Josephus of the baptism of John, 
 Antiq. B. xviii. c. 5, § 2, presents the same train of thought to 
 the mind. Instead of the awkward translation of Whiston I 
 prefer to give a free statement of the obvious sense, and to quote 
 the original where critical exactness is needed. 
 
 John, he says, informed the Jews that before they could be 
 baptized they must commence and profess the practice of piety 
 towards God, and justice towards each other — and that their 
 baptism would be acceptable to God, if they did not rely upon it 
 as a means of putting away a part only of their sins, but used it 
 merely as a means of purifying the body, to indicate that the 
 soul had been previously thoroughly purified by righteousness. 
 
 To denote baptism he uses the word (3a'n'TKfig, and to denote its 
 import he states that they are to use it £(p' ayvsia rod Cwjaaro^, olts 
 Ss xai TYjs ■i^v)(7}g dixaio(fvvri ij^^osxxsxa&a^iJ.ivrig. Now here, I re- 
 mark that there was nothing to cause Josephus or any other Jew 
 to think of the mode, or to attach any importance to it. No idea 
 of a fancied reference, in the rite, to the death of Christ, could 
 bias his mind towards the sense immerse. To him, it is plain, 
 that it meant nothing but " purifying the body, to indicate that the 
 mind had been previously thoroughly purified by righteousness;" 
 and he speaks just as he would, if these ideas had been suggested 
 by the name of the rite ; in other words, just as he would if 
 xa&a^(fiS had stood in the place of (Sa'jtTKfig. 
 
 Now although I would not rely on such places for proof, 
 against a strong contrary probability, yet when I find them so 
 perfectly coincident with all other facts, when all shades of pro- 
 bability so perfectly harmonize and blend in a common result, I 
 cannot hesitate, for I see no good reason for doubt. It is not a 
 solitary fact on which the argument rests. To overthrow it, the 
 whole current of probability must be reversed, and so striking a 
 coincidence and harmony of meaning, in so many independent 
 passages, be supposed to exist without a cause. Particular errors 
 
§ 18. THE FATHERS. 47 
 
 may no doubt be detected in the argument, and individual pas- 
 sages, viewed out of their relations, may be made to admit another 
 possible sense. But that a fair and comprehensive view of all 
 the facts of the case can be made to lead to a result opposite to 
 the one here maintained, I shall not think possible, until I see it 
 done ; and there are no new and undiscovered means for doing it. 
 The facts all lie within a given and definite compass, and they 
 can easily be placed before the minds of all. If any that bear 
 on the case have been omitted, it can easily be shown. If not, 
 then it must be shown that the principles, on which this argument 
 rests, are unsound, or that they have not been accurately applied, 
 and I am not aware that either of these things can be done. 
 
 The argument from the usage of the writers of Alexandrine 
 Greek is now at an end. Other considerations, as it regards this 
 part of the subject, still remain ; but the statement of them will 
 be deferred till the leading objections to this view shall claim our 
 attention. 
 
 § 18. The Fathers. 
 
 I shall now proceed to show that evidence of the truth of this 
 view is also to be found in the writings of the Fathers. 
 
 I appeal to them, not because I think that their opinions, on 
 questions of interpretation, or sacred philology, are of much 
 weight, for it is well known to all, that either their attainments in 
 biblical literature were small, or that their principles of philology 
 were to a great extent fluctuating or unsound. Nor do I appeal 
 to them, because I deem their theological opinions of peculiar 
 weight. They deserve, indeed, a respectful attention, and are of 
 great use in investigating the history of opinions. Moreover, they 
 often furnish rich and valuable materials for thought. But nothing 
 can be more desperate than the attempt to make a regular and 
 harmonious system of truth from their works. The sentence of 
 Milton on them is well known ; and though, if left unbalanced by 
 other considerations, it would produce undue neglect, yet it is es- 
 sentially based on truth. But I refer to them, simply as furnish- 
 
48 BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. § 19. 
 
 ing facts in the history of language, and it will be my object to 
 show that these facts are such as would naturally flow from the 
 truth of the view which I have given. 
 
 My position then is this: if we admit that in the days of Christ, 
 xa^a^jjw was the import of iSa-TTTj^w, taking all the texts in the 
 New Testament in which the word occurs, and the ideas con- 
 nected with the rite, and looking at the laws of the mind and the 
 natural course of thought, we shall find that no view can so well 
 explain the usus loquendi of the Fathers and the opinions enter- 
 tained by them, and by their opponents, of the import and effects 
 of the rite. 
 
 § 19. Baptismal Regeneration. 
 
 This view shows how dva^svvotw, to regenerate, and other words 
 of like import, could easily become, with the Fathers, synonymes 
 of fSa-n'Ti^u. That these words did so become, is a notorious fact, 
 as will presently be proved, but the whole reason is not commonly 
 assigned. The reason, at least in part, appears to be this : xct&a^i^u, 
 and of course ^wn'ri^cjj, in its spiritual sense, is in fact a synonyme 
 of dva^swccw ; — for what is it to purify the spirit, but to re- 
 generate ? In fact, this very form of speech is used to denote this 
 thing. Thus in 1 Pet. i. 22, 23. The idea to purify the soul 
 in obeying the truth, through the spirit, in v. 22, is in v. 23 ex- 
 pressed by the equivalent born again of the word of God, in which 
 dva^svvaw is used. So in Acts xv. 9. He made no difference 
 between them and us, " having purified their hearts by faith" 
 (tJj '!fi(fTSi xa&oi^ldag tcxj xa^Slag duTOJv). So, too, the pure in heart 
 (xa&a^oi TTJ xa^Sici) shall see God, Matt. v. 8. " Who gave himself 
 for us that he might redeem us from all iniquity, and purify 
 (xa&a^idj}) unto himself a peculiar people," Tit. ii. 14. So Eph. 
 v. 26. 
 
 It also explains the origin of Baptismal Regeneration, for 
 where analogical senses exist, one denoting external and mate- 
 rial, and the other spiritual purification, it is natural that 
 they should run into each other, also that terms applied, to 
 
§ 19. BAPTISMAL REGENERATION. 49 
 
 one should be applied to the other. Thus, if (Saitrl^c^ means 
 to purify, then there is natural purification and spiritual puri- 
 fication, and in a passage where spiritual purification alone is 
 meant, the idea of external purification may commingle. Tims 
 in Pet. i. 9, xa&aPKfixov denotes only spiritual purification from 
 sin. But extensively the sense ritual purification by the external 
 rite was commingled, among the Fathers — as also among the 
 formalists of this day. The same is true in 1 Cor. vi. 11, where 
 *'ye are washed" (aTfeXoi^tracrds) denotes spiritual washing only, 
 and yet the same idea of external ritual washing, has extensively 
 been commingled, in the conceptions and interpretations of 
 formalists.* Moreover, since spiritual purification is regenera- 
 tion, there would be a tendency first to use ava^swaw in the place 
 of /Sa'TTTj^w when it denoted spiritual purification. Having thus 
 become an equivalent of /Da-Trri'^w in one sense, there would be a 
 tendency in the word to assume its place when used in the other 
 sense, and thus to denote the external rite, and not, in the first 
 instance, to denote its actual efficacy. So in Justin Martyr, 
 /Sa-rrj^w is rarely, if ever, used at all to describe the rite, but 
 dva^swaw. 'EVsira ayovrai v:^^ tjixCJv sv&a. vS(a)^ z^tI xcci r^o-rrov 
 ava^s vvsVsw^ 6u xaj r}ix,Sig ava^svvy]^y](xsv avaysvvwvraj : — " Th3n they 
 are brought by us where there is water, and in the manner of 
 regeneration, in which we were regenerated, they are regene- 
 rated ;" that is, in the manner of baptism, wherein we were 
 baptized, they are baptized. And this use was general and 
 familiar, as may be fully seen in the quotations collected by 
 Wall in his history of infant baptism. 
 
 * Baptismal regeneration, as held by the Fathers, does not imply rege- 
 neration by mere water, without the spirit, but it is a commingling of 
 external and internal purification, by the theory that it is God's established 
 mode to give internal purification through external, and not independently 
 of it. Hence, when the internal alone is spoken of, their mode of thinking 
 mingled the external with it. The one purification in Eph. iv, 5, is 
 spiritual only, so also in Rom. vi. 3, 4 ; yet the idea of the external puri- 
 fication was so commingled with it as to predominate. 
 
 3 
 
50 DENIAL OF WATER BAPTISM. § 20. 
 
 Another cause tended to the same result, the application of the 
 figure " born of water" in John iii. 5, to external baptism. Of 
 this I shall speak in the next section. Which exerted most 
 influence let others decide. 
 
 § 20. Detiial of Water Baptism. 
 
 This view explains not only the early prevalence of the idea 
 of baptismal regeneration, but also of the other extreme, the 
 entire denial of water baptism. 
 
 As already stated, there are two kinds of purification, that 
 of the Spirit and that of water ; — one real and effectual, the other 
 only a symbol, an external rite, and yet both are called by the 
 same name, purification, or baptism. 
 
 Now in the New Testament there is a class of texts, in which 
 the true and spiritual purification alone is spoken of, and a saving 
 energy is ascribed to it ; as Eph. iv. 5, Gal. iii. 27, 1 Cor. xii. 
 13, Rom. vi. 3, 4, Col. ii. 12, Eph. v. 26, 1 Pet. iii. 21, Titus iii. 
 5, John iii. 5. That the external form cannot be here spoken of, 
 I propose to show in another place. I refer to these passages 
 here to illustrate fully the idea. 
 
 But soon, the external sense intruded, and with what was first 
 said only of the essential spiritual purification, the idea of the 
 external form was mingled, according to the uniform tendency of 
 the human mind to sink from the spirit to the form, and thus made 
 baptismal regeneration, and all its train of errors. And as one 
 extreme begets another, those who opposed this view as too carnal, 
 relying on those passages where baptism denotes clearly no more 
 than a spiritual purification, would deny that the form was to be 
 used at all. In practice, words are things. Systems grow out of 
 words. And a word of a double analogical sense, like purify, would 
 naturally give rise to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration, on 
 the one side, and to an entire denial of water baptism on the other ; 
 and that such were the results all know. On the other hand, the 
 word in the sense to immerse, tends to no such result, for the 
 
§ 21. PATRISTIC USAGES. 51 
 
 spiritual sense, in this usage, has no relation at all to regenera- 
 tion or purity in any form, and denotes, as before stated, only to 
 ' overwhelm, to oppress. And it deserves notice, that the same 
 passages, which, by this process of sinking the spiritual in the 
 natural, gave rise to the gross errors of baptismal regeneration, 
 are still the passages which, in consequence of the general con- 
 cession of the church that they relate to the external form, fill 
 the hands of the Romanists, Puseyites, Campbellites, and other 
 errorists of the like kind, with their most powerful weapons. 
 
 Had xa&a^i^u, and not (Sa-Trri^u, been used, so that its analo- 
 gical uses could have been noticed, and its spiritual import felt, 
 by modern scholars, the root of the error would have been seen. 
 But by using the word baptize, as a technic, the laws which 
 influenced the mind in its original use have been veiled. And, 
 until that class of passages, from which the doctrine of bap- 
 tismal regeneration sprang, is restored to their original, true, and 
 spiritual sense, the occasions of this pernicious error can never be 
 thoroughly eradicated from the Christian church. 
 
 Hence I do not ascribe the origin of the usage of ava^swaw, as 
 a synonyme of (Swn'Ti^u, to the doctrine of baptismal regeneration 
 as some do, — but rather believe that the natural and early use of 
 this word to denote the rite, and a false application of certain texts 
 to it, gave rise to the doctrine itself, and that, when this doctrine 
 was established, the whole range of language pertaining to re- 
 generation passed over to the rite, as (pw?, (pwrtCfjooV, 'xakiyyZMMSdla, 
 @soys\iv6(fia, ctva'rrXao'jf ; — that is, light, illumination, regeneration, 
 the divine generation, a new creation. Hence also (pwr»^w, to 
 baptize. 
 
 § 21. Patristic Usages. 
 
 Besides this general reasoning from well-known facts, there is 
 also philological proof that the word was often used by the 
 Fathers in the sense xu&a^i^u). That the other sense also occurs 
 I need not deny ; for they were originally formed rather in the 
 school of classic, than of Alexandrine Greek. In their case two 
 
52 PATRISTIC USAGES. § 21. 
 
 currents met, and we are not to look so much for universally con- 
 sistent use, as for evidence that the Alexandrine current did 
 mingle in the stream. A general view of facts is this. 
 
 1. The earlier Christian writers do not so often use the word 
 ^a-Trrj^w, as some synonyme derived from the sense to purify, as 
 ava^svvaoo, as before stated. Nor do they fix the mind on the idea 
 immerse, but on purification, and use such paraphrases as denote 
 it. Thus, after the passage of Justin Martyr already quoted, he 
 says, in describing the mode of regeneration or baptism, in the 
 name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, 
 Xourpov -ztfojouvraj, they wash or purify them. 
 
 2. They often use (BaiZTidiLog in the legal and sacrificial sense, 
 so as to exclude any idea but xa^apjtr'/jioV. So Chrysostom, Hom. 
 83, says, " He calls his cross and death, a cup and baptism, — a 
 cup, because he readily drank it ; baptism (/3a'33'T»o'|xov), because 
 by it he purified, sxai^i^psv, the world ;" that is, he calls it purifica- 
 tion, because by it he purified the world, in which case the sense 
 is sacrificial, he made atonement for the world, — and the reason 
 assigned depends, for all its force, on giving to (BazirKfix.os the 
 sacrificial sense xa&apio'fxog. Such usages as /Sa'rrio'jxa Sia ixapru- 
 pjou xai ui'ixoiTos, " purification iy martyrdom and hy blood," demon- 
 strate the truth of this view. See §§ 25 and 26, also § 64. 
 
 So Theophylact, on Matt. xx. 22, 23, says, "He calls his 
 death (SatrKfixov w^ xa&aprixov ov-ra 'ravrwv tjjulgjv ; as making a 
 purification, or expiation for all of us," where the whole force, as 
 before, rests on giving to ^a^rrrKfiiov the sacrificial sense xu^apiCjaov. 
 As if he had said, he calls his death a purification, because it was 
 designed to purify all of us. So, on Mark x. 38, 39, he says, 
 " He calls his cross (SaifrKfiiov, as about to make a purification 
 for sins," xa&apKf^xhv twv ajaapriGjv. Here the sacrificial sense is 
 still more evident and undeniable, and requires {Sa-n'TKfiiov to mean 
 xa^apitfjxo'v, as before. Many other passages of a like kind could 
 be adduced, but it is needless. §§ 25, 26. 
 
 3. They sometimes, in describing the rite, use xa&aipu or 
 xadap»(^w alone. Thus Gregory-Nazianz. says, 6-^si xada»p6(X£vov 
 
§ 21. PATRISTIC USAGES. 53 
 
 'Irirfouv £v Tw 'lopSavY) Ty]v si^rjv xcc^apCiv ^aXkov 8i ayviPovra tyj xa&ap<f si 
 Ta Wara — ov yap S-rj aurog iSsiro xadapCiSuig 6 a»pwv Tr}\i afxapriav tou 
 xoV/xou ; that is, '• thou shalt see Jesus purified, i. e. baptized, in the 
 Jordan, with my purification (i. e. baptism), or rather, sanctifying 
 the waters, by his purification : for he did not need purification 
 who taketh away the sins of the world." Here /DacrTi^w is not 
 used at all in describing the rite, and in its place is used xa^aipw 
 and its derivatives, both in a moral and sacrificial sense.* 
 
 Again, " He who can take away the sins of others," ov xa^aprfiwv 
 svsxa zntl to, vajxara sp-^srm, aXK' oVts ^^^vajxiv dvroig sv^sjvai xa^apTixrjv, 
 does not come to the water for the sake of being purified himself, 
 but to impart to it a purifying power. 
 
 Here, as before, I do not vouch for the truth of the ideas. 
 They are pregnant with superstition. From the notion that 
 Christ, at his baptism, gave to the water a purifying power, came 
 the idea of holy water, and ot a mysterious influence or presence 
 in the water of baptism, which is a constituent part of the doctrine 
 of baptismal regeneration. Still the passages are of no less im- 
 portance in showing the use of words ; and for this alone I quote 
 them. 
 
 It would be of no avail, here, to say that the Fathers did in 
 fact immerse ; this could not decide that purify was not the 
 sense, — and even if it could be shown that some of them use the 
 word l3a'TfTi^o to denote the act of immersion in baptism, it would 
 avail nothing. It would only prove inconsistent usage. But in 
 the confluence of classical and Alexandrine Greek, after the days of 
 Christ, and in writers so various and so multifarious, we are not 
 to look for consistent usage. It is enough that we find the usage 
 claimed. We should rather expect a transition from the original 
 ideas of the New Testament writers, through a period of incon- 
 sistent usage, till, as the form usurped the place of the spirit, and 
 a superstitious efficacy was attached to immersion, the original 
 sense would disappear, and the name of the form alone remain, 
 as is the case in the Greek Church at the present day. 
 
 * See & 25. 
 
54 PATRISTIC USAGES. § 21. 
 
 I do not expect to find in the Fathers a correct philosophical 
 account of the origin or progress of their own errors. They as- 
 sign different, and often inconsistent reasons for the usages of 
 language already adverted to. It is enough for me that I have 
 the facts before me, and the laws of the mind to explain them. 
 They are just such as I should expect, on the supposhion that the 
 original religious sense of /Sa'Trr/^w was xa^apit^w. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 What precedes was the basis of Dr. Carson's first reply to me. I did 
 not consider the discussion complete, but was then preparing the two 
 following chapters. All of my positions I have sustained since, by the 
 Fathers I have not endeavored to give a minute answer to all of Dr. 
 Carson's allegations, false as I deem them to be. The work would have 
 been endless. Yet I have in reality answered all his arguments, either by 
 more fully expanding my views so as to correct his misrepresentations, or 
 by adducing or referring to new evidence, subsequently produced. — See 
 especially §§ 67, 6S. 
 
PART II 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 The principles and leading positions of the argument in regard 
 to the import of (Satri^c^ have been stated. This argument in- 
 volves three main points : 1. The clearing away of irrelevant or 
 false positions, and definitely stating the point really at issue, and 
 the proposition to be maintained — §§ 1-3. 2. The antecedent 
 probability of the meaning claimed, according to the laws of lan- 
 guage and of the mind, and from the nature of the subject — §§ 4 
 -7. 3. Philological proof from the writers of Alexandrine 
 Greek and from the fathers — §§ 8-21. ^ 
 
 The Philological argument is therefore complete, so far as is 
 implied in a statement of its principles and leading positions. It 
 is not, however, complete so far as its cumulative power is con- 
 cerned. A large number of facts still remains, which, in their 
 proper place, will strongly confirm every main position 1 have as- 
 sumed. 
 
 § 22. Patristic Practice. 
 But here the regular operations of the mind are interrupted 
 by the entrance of disturbing forces of great and bewildering 
 power. In every fundamental investigation of the mode of bap- 
 tism, three inquiries are commonly involved and combined. 1. 
 The import of the word (Saitri^c^. 2. The original practice of 
 the church. 3. The full and perfect signification of the rite. 
 The influences of these two last inquiries on the question of phi- 
 lology, I call bewildering and disturbing forces— not because they 
 
56 PATRISTIC PRACTICE. § 22. 
 
 are not important and legitimate objects of inquiry in their pro- 
 per sphere ; and not because they have no bearing on the main 
 question of the mode — but because they have exercised over the 
 question of philology, an unauthorized though unsuspected pow- 
 er. No attentive observer of the operations of the human mind 
 can have failed to notice, that the impression of an argument, 
 true and sound in itself, is often destroyed by the secret influence 
 of some fact or principle, which does not appear in the discussion. 
 These deep under-currents have frequently a power entirely su- 
 perior to the logical force of the argument presented, and pro- 
 duce a state of min 1 which, if expressed in words, would be in 
 substance this : " Ail this looks well enough ; it is quite plausible, 
 to be sure ; but still it cannot he true ; there must be an error 
 somewhere." States of mind like this — felt but not announced 
 —often do more to break ^'.le strength of an argument, than any 
 direct perception of its falsehood. So now, that the philological 
 argument has been stated, I have no doubt that the thought will 
 arise in many a mind : " Well, after all, it is a fact that the ear- 
 ly Christians did universally immerse, and did attach great im- 
 portance to that form ; and they surely understood the i?nport of 
 the word as well as loe. Besides, the rite is designed to represent, 
 not merely purification from sin, but purification in a way signi- 
 ficant of death and the resurrection of Christ, as we are ex- 
 pressly told in Rom. vi. 2, 3, and Col. ii. 12. All these learn- 
 ed philological inquiries are no doubt very fine, and quite plausi- 
 ble ; but the single expression, " hurled with Christ in haiptism^^^ 
 is enough to dissipate them all. Now, while these under-currents 
 of thought are overlooked, it is in vain to attempt to give to the 
 philological argument, however sound in itself, any power at all. 
 As some mighty stream, undermining banks, trees, and houses, 
 precipitates them together into the flood, and hurries them along 
 in promiscuous ruin, so do these deep under-currents undermine 
 and lay prostrate the walls of the best-compacted logical fiibric. 
 Considerations like these, indeed, produce a greater popular ef- 
 
§ 23. FALSE INFERENCES. 57 
 
 feet than reasonings, however profound. The ideas lie upon the 
 surface, and are therefore easily stated and easily apprehended. 
 
 ' It is essential, then, to inquire what are the facts on the first 
 of these points, and what is their bearing on the philological ques- 
 tion ? Having done this, we may resume and review our inves- 
 tigations. 
 
 What, then, are the facts, as it regards the practice of the earlier 
 ages of the church ? I am willing freely and fully to concede 
 that, in the primitive church, from the earliest period of which 
 we have any historical accounts, immersion was the mode gene- 
 rally practised, and, except in extraordinary cases, the only mode. 
 I do not mean that these remarks shall apply to the apostolic age, 
 but to the earliest historical ages of the uninspired primitive 
 church. The practice of the apostolic age, I shall consider by 
 itself After all that has been said upon this point by learned 
 men, it will not be deemed necessary for me to advance proof of 
 the position, that in the primitive church immersion was the ge- 
 neral mode of baptism. No one who has candidly examined the 
 original sources of evidence, will entertain a doubt. If any one 
 does doubt, let him read the articles in Suicer on avct^utfj^ and 
 xarahdig ; or, still better, some of the Fathers themselves. For 
 a comprehensive, clear, and definite view of the great outlines of 
 primitive practice in this respect, I know of no passages more full, 
 and at the same time eloquent, than the sermons of Augustine to 
 the Neophytes, pp. 97-99, vol. i. supp. Paris, 1555. I do not 
 mean that the early practice included all which is stated by 
 Augustine ; for many superstitious usages had, by this time, be- 
 come prevalent. It is the main outline to which I refer. 
 
 § 23. False Inferences. 
 
 But admitting these things to be facts, what then ? Does 
 it follow of course, that the Fathers were led to adopt this 
 form by a belief that the import of the word /Sa-TTTj^w is to im- 
 merse ? This I know seems very generally to have been taken 
 
 3* 
 
58 FALSE INFERENCES. § 23. 
 
 for granted on both sides of the question. For example, Profes- 
 sor Stuart, after an able and clear exhibition of the proof that the 
 early churches did baptize by immersion, says : " In what man- 
 ner, then, did the churches of Christ, from a very early period, 
 to say the least, understand the word /Sa-TrTi^w in the New Testa- 
 ment ? Plainly they construed it as meaning immersion." 
 " That the Greek Fathers, and the Latin ones who were familiar 
 with the Greek, understood the usual import of the word /Sa-TTTi'^w, 
 would hardly seem to be capable of a denial." Bib. Rep. Vol. 
 iii. 362. Now, all this is manifestly based on the assumption, 
 that the practice of the Fathers, in this case, is an infallible index 
 of their philology; i. e. if they did in fact immerse, they must of 
 course have believed that /3a'7rr»^w means to immerse. Indeed, 
 this seems generally to have been regarded as a first principle, an 
 indisputable truth. As long as it is so regarded, the facts already 
 stated, as to early practice, will exert a strong, disturbing influ- 
 ence on the mind. The scholar, in the region of philology and 
 logic, finds all plain ; but he enters the dizzy and bewildering re- 
 gion of early practice, and his brain reels, his energy is dissolved, 
 and some unseen power seems to be wresting his previous philo- 
 logical conclusions from his grasp. Indeed, if it is a sound princi- 
 ple that we must infer the opinions of the Fathers, as to the im- 
 port of /Sa'TTTj^oj, from their practice, I see not how he can avoid 
 letting them go ; for of the facts there can be no doubt. But it is 
 high time to ask : Is the principle sound ? is it logical ? has it any 
 force at all ? It may seem adventurous to call in question a princi- 
 ple so generally received and so firmly believed. Nevertheless, 
 I am compelled to say that I cannot perceive that the position is 
 based on any sound principle of philology or logic ; nay it seems 
 to me that there is abundant evidence that it is entirely illogical 
 and unsound. 1. Because, where a given result may have been 
 produced by many causes, it is never logical to assume, without 
 proof, that it is the result of any one of them alone. The proper 
 course is, to inquire which of the possible causes was, in fact, the 
 real and efficient cause of the result in question. 2. Because, on 
 
§ 23. FALSE INFERENCES. 69 
 
 making the inquiry, it appears manifest to me, that the practice 
 in question did not originate in a belief that the word /oa-n'Tj^w 
 rrieans immerse, but in entirely different and independent causes. 
 Suppose now the word to mean to j)urify, it is neither impossible 
 nor improbable, that certain local and peculiar causes may have 
 led to some one mode of purifying rather than another, and tha/- 
 this mode may have been immersion ; and if all these things may 
 have been so, who has a right to assume, without proof, that they 
 were not so ? I believe that they were. If it is inquired : What 
 causes they were? I answer: 1. Oriental usages and the habits 
 of warmer regions. 2. A false interpretation of Rom. vi. 3, 4, 
 and Col. ii. 12. 3 A very early habit of ascribing peculiar vir- 
 tue to external forms. The first cause is sufficient to begin the 
 practice ; the other two to extend, perpetuate, and confirm it. 
 Now, if it can be shown that these causes did exist, and did ope- 
 rate, and had great power, then a sufficient account of the origin 
 and progress of the usage may he given hy these alone ; and thus, 
 all presumption against the meaning I have assigned to (BaitTi^u, 
 or in favor of the sense to immerse, will be taken away ; and 
 thus, the way will be prepared to resume the direct philological 
 proof, that in the earlier ages the word /Sa'TTTj^w did mean purify. 
 But of their existence or their power, can there be a doubt ? 
 Did not Christianity begin in the warm regions of the East, and 
 in the midst of a people whose climate, habits, costume, and mode 
 of life were all adapted to bathing? and was not the practice 
 nearly universal ? Hqnce nothing could be more natural than 
 its use on convenient occasions, as a mode of religious purifying ; 
 and if, as some maintain, the form had been previously used as a 
 religious rite, nothing could be more natural than its adoption as 
 a mode of purifying in the church. As to the interpretation of 
 Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, as referring to the external form, 
 all may not be ready to concede that it was false ; yet that it was 
 early prevalent and powerful, no one, I think, at all acquainted 
 with the facts of the case, will deny. But of this, more in ano- 
 ther place. As to a superstitious attachment to forms — who can 
 
60 DECISIVE CASES. § 24. 
 
 deny it ? nay, who that is a Protestant does ? Evidence of it 
 throngs on every page that records the early history of the Church. 
 To omit all else, the history of this rite alone would furnish vo- 
 lumes of proof. Let the holy water — the baptismal chrism, to 
 symbolize and bestow the Holy Spirit — the putting on of white 
 robes after baptism, to symbolize the putting on of Christ — the 
 baptism of men and women perfectly naked, to denote their entire 
 moral nakedness before putting on Christ — let the anointing of the 
 eyes and ears, to denote the sanctification of the senses — let the 
 eating of honey and milk — the sign of the cross ; and, finally, let 
 baptismal regeneration — the sum and completion of all these for- 
 mal tendencies — bear witness to the mournful truth. Now, when 
 the tendencies to formalism and superstition were so all-pervading 
 and alircst omnipotent, what could avert a blind and superstitious 
 devotion to an early form — one especially in which so much was 
 supposed to be involved, both of emblematical import and of sanc- 
 tifying power. 
 
 § 24. Decisive Cases. 
 
 Having now pointed out causes, amply sufficient in extent and 
 power, to account for the early prevalence of immersion, and thus 
 removed all presumption against the sense I claim, I will resume, 
 and exhibit more fully the philological evidence, that the early 
 understanding of the church was, that fSaitri^o), as a religious 
 term, did signify to purify. I shall, 1, notice more at large those 
 cases in which it is not only in the highest degree probable that 
 fSam-ri^u) has the sense to purify, but in which it is positively ab- 
 surd to assign it any other meaning. 2. Show that a very large 
 number of coincident facts sustains and gives verisimilitude to this 
 view. The argument already presented is, to my own mind, per- 
 fectly conclusive. For it has been shown that the sense to purify 
 is, k priori, probable, according to the laws of language and of the 
 mind, and from the nature of the subject. See §§ 4-7. It has 
 also been shown that the fair and obvious import of a large class 
 of passages demands the sense ; that the coincidence of so many 
 
§ 25. BAPTISM OF BLOOD. CASE OF CHRIST. 61 
 
 separate probabilities brings together an array of proof that can- 
 not be resisted ; and, also, that no opposite probabilities exist. 
 See §§ 8-21. Still, it may be felt, if not said, how much better, 
 in a case so important, to have proof so clear, unequivocal, and 
 decided, that the opposite sense shall not only be highly improba- 
 ble, but absolutely impossible. Though I by no means admit 
 the justice of this demand — because hundreds and thousands of 
 senses are daily admitted on evidence far less ample than that 
 already given, and to admit the necessity of such proof to estab- 
 lish a meaning would subvert all principles of sound philology — 
 yet, as the materials for such proof exist, it seems appropriate 
 here to present them. 
 
 §25. Baptism of Blood. Case of Christ. 
 
 To perceive fully the force of these, it is necessary to notice, 1. 
 The source whence they are derived, which is ancient usage, as 
 it regards the baptism of blood : 2. The cases to which they 
 relate, which are two; (1) the bloody baptism of Christ ; (2) the 
 bloody baptism of the martyrs : 3. Their views in relation to this 
 subject. They apply the word baptism merely to the act of mak- 
 ing an atonement by shedding blood, even where no one is spoken 
 of, either as sprinkled by it or immersed in it, and when the 
 only external act spoken of is totally at war with the idea of im- 
 mersion. In cases of this kind, no sense is possible but xa&apd^ios, 
 which is the established sacrificial term for an atonement, as I 
 have already shown, § 12. Let us then begin with the case of 
 our Saviour, of whose bloody baptism they so often speak. He 
 shed his blood for sins, and this is called xa^a^itf/xo'^, in the word 
 of God. Heb. i. 5. Now, if they call the mere act of shedding 
 his blood a ^acrTiVfAa, it is totally impossible that it should be 
 taken in any except the sacrificial sense, xa&cc^KfiJ.6g. But in Ori- 
 gen, Hom. 7, on Judges vi., occurs a long passage on the baptism 
 of blood, in which this very usage of language occurs. Speaking 
 of Luke xii. 50, he says : " Pertendit enim nostra probatio non 
 
62 BAPTISM OF BLOOD. CASE OF CHRIST. § 25. 
 
 usque ad verbera solum, sed usque ad profusionem sanguinis per- 
 venit. Quia et Christus, quern sequimur, pro redemptione nostra 
 effudit sanguinem suum, ut inde exeamus loti sanguine nostro. 
 Baptisma enim sanguinis solum est, quod nos puriores reddat, 
 quam aquse baptismus reddit. Et hoc ego non prsesumo, sed 
 Scriptura refert, dicente domino ad discipulos : Baptismum habeo 
 baptizari, quod vos nescitis ; et quomodo urgeo ut perficiatur. 
 Vides ergo quia profusionem sanguinis sui baptisma nominavit.^^ 
 " Our probation extends, not only to stripes, but to the shedding 
 of blood, for Christ whom we follow, shed his blood for our re- 
 demption, in order that we may leave this world washed in our 
 own blood. For it is the baptism of blood alone, which renders 
 us more pure than the baptism of water. Nor do I say this pre- 
 sumptuously, but the Scripture authorizes it, by the statement of 
 our Lord to his disciples : I have a baptism to be baptized with, 
 which ye know not. You see, therefore, that he called the shed- 
 ding of his blood a baptism." Here observe, 1. That the mind 
 is fixed intently and alone on the effusion of Mood. 2. He 
 expressly states, that Christ calls this shedding of Mood a Miptism. 
 3. By a reference to other parts of his writings, his meaning is 
 fixed beyond dispute. He uses dia after (^aitridiiM, as do John 
 of Damascus, Athanasius, and others, so as to render impossible 
 the idea immersion. Origen, Vol. iv. p. 156, Ed. Delarue, Paris, 
 1733, TO Ts'Xsiov l3a<TfTi(f^oi 8ia tov jULutf<rr]pjou <ifa6ovs- " The perfect 
 purification by the mystery of his sufferings." John of Damas- 
 cus, Vol. i. p. 261, Paris, 1712 : to ^anrnd^oL Si' a'n^aros xa/ fxap- 
 Tupi'ou xat Xpitfro^ virsp tjjuiojv s^aitrlduro. " The purification 
 by blood and martyrdom, by which Christ purified himself for 
 us." Athanasius, Vol. ii. p. 286, Paris, 1^698 : to (Ba'ttrid^a dicL 
 (xapTUp/ou, xa\ al^Mrog. " The purification by martyrdom and 
 blood." In all these cases the use of Sia with the Genitive ren- 
 ders the sense immersion impossible. See also § 64 at the 
 end. 4. The only external act spoken of is outpouring ; and, 
 surely, to call this an immersion is absurd. Here, then, an 
 impossiUlity of the sense immersion is clearly proved. 5. But, 
 
§ 26. BAPTISBI OF BLOOD. CASE OF MARTYRS. 63 
 
 give to baptisma the sense xa&a^i(f^6g, and all is harmonious 
 and plain ; for an outpouring of blood is a xaduPK^ixos in the 
 sacrificial sense, i. e. an atonement. In Heb. i. 3, xa^a^itf/xov 
 itoro(fciiis\/os Twv otfxa^i-iwv Tjiawv is applied to Christ in this very 
 sense. Let now the passages from Chiysostom, Gregory Naz., 
 and Theophylact be re-examined, and carefully compared with 
 these. § xxif. 2, 3. Those from Chrysostom and Theophylact 
 both relate to the baptism of blood, and refer to passages in 
 Matthew and Mark, parallel in sense to that in Luke, to which 
 Origen refers— Mark x. 38, 39, Matthew xx. 22, 23. So that 
 their usage of /SocTi'Tio'fxo^ to denote xa^aPicf^xos, is certainly and 
 undeniably the same with that of Origen. By Gregory Naz. this 
 same sacrificial sense is just as clearly extended to the baptism 
 of water ; for he says : •' He did not need purification) i. e. for- 
 giveness of sins) who taketh away the sins of the world." Two 
 points ai'e now perfectly established. 1. Ba'jrrKf^os has the sacri- 
 ficial sense xai^a^KT/xoV. 2. In the description given of the rite by 
 Gregory Naz., not only are xa^ai^w and xa6a^(fig used in the 
 place of f:iairTi^o and (3a'n'<rt(tii6s, but they are used as perfectly 
 synonymous. 
 
 § 26. Baptism of Blood. Case of Martyrs, 
 
 But let us look once more at this same usage, not only in the 
 case of Christ, but also of the martyrs who followed his steps. 
 In order to do this the more clearly, let us for a moment consider 
 the feelings of the early ages as it regards martyrdom. The 
 following points are here to be noticed. 1. The religion of 
 Christ began with a solemn act of martyrdom — even that of the 
 Son of God. 2. Christ knew that multitudes of his disciples 
 were soon to be called to endure the same fate. 3. Both by his 
 example and also by his spirit-stirring words, he provided great 
 and powerful motives to excite his disciples to meet death, in its 
 most terrific forms, without weakness or fear. 4. These motives 
 were not only effectual to produce the desired result in multi- 
 tudes of instances, but the minds of the early Christians were so 
 
64 BAPTISM OF BLOOD. CASE OF MARTYRS. § 26. 
 
 deeply affected and so highly excited on this subject, that soon 
 they went even to the extreme of undue eagerness for such a 
 death. 5. This disposition was increased by a false construction 
 put on the words of Paul : " I am ready to be offered." — 2 Tim. 
 iv. 6. " Yea, and if I be offered up," etc.— Phil. ii. 7. Also 
 on the words of Christ: "Can ye be baptized with the baptism 
 wherewith I am baptized ?" which, as we have shown, they un- 
 derstood as : " Can ye be purified with the purification wherewith 
 I am purified ?" and regarded as an inquiry, whether they were 
 ready to be purified in their own blood, as he was in his. See, 
 in the preceding passages of Origen : " loti sanguine nostro." 
 Hence they ascribed to the death of a martyr a kind of atoning 
 power, and spoke of it as a xa6api<fix6s or (3aitTi<fix6g, in the sacrifical 
 sense. 6. This purification was supposed to avail especially for 
 the martyr ; so that, if he had never been purified in water for the 
 remission of his sins, they were remitted by his purification in his 
 own blood. Hence, the universal idea of a bloody baptism was, 
 that the martyr was purified, or purged from sin, by his own 
 blood. 7. It was also supposed, that the deaths of martyrs had a 
 purifying power on behalf of others. Now the correctness of 
 these views is not the question. They were evidently false. 
 Our only inquiry is : In what language were they expressed ? 
 And the answer is as before ; Ba':rTj^w and /3a.<n'<r»o'/xa are freely 
 used to denote the act of purifying, or purging from sin by the 
 shedding of blood ; and that in such circumstances, all attempts 
 to introduce the idea of immersion are vain. Origen, on John 
 i. 29, speaking of Jesus, the Lamb of God, says : " Et sane 
 hujus victimae cognatae sunt cseterae, quarum symbola sunt 
 legales: per cseteras vero victimas huic victimae cognatas, 
 effusiones intelligo sanguinis generosorum martyrum ;" and after 
 a few lines he adds : " Quae purgant eos pro quibus offeruntur." 
 " And truly the other victims, of whom the legal victims are 
 symbols, are related to this victim (i. e. Christ). By other 
 victims related to this, I understand the shedding of the blood of 
 generous martyrs — who make expiation for those on whose behalf 
 they are offered." In Latin the idea of expiation is conveyed by 
 
§26. BAPTISM OF BLOOD. CASE OF MARTYRS. 65 
 
 purgo — in Greek, xa^ajpw. Just before, Christ as a victim, is 
 called xa^ap(r»ov tou oXou xoVju.ou, a purification of the whole 
 world. Again, in his notes on Matthew xx. 22, 23, he says : 
 " Quod autem quis in passione remissionem accipit peccatorum 
 baptismus est." " But because any one by suffering receives 
 remission of sins it is a baptism " (that is an expiation). He 
 assigns this reason : " Si enim baptismus indulgentiam pecca- 
 torum promittit, sicut accepimus de baptismo aquse et spiritus, 
 remissionem autem accipit peccatorum, et qui martyrii suscipit 
 baptismus, sine dubio ipsum martyrium rationabiliter baptismus 
 appellatur." " For if the rite of absolution promises the for- 
 giveness of sins, as we have been taught concerning the purifi- 
 cation of water and the Spirit, and if he who receives the purifi- 
 cation of martyrdom, also receives the forgiveness of sins, with- 
 out doubt, martyrdom itself is reasonably called an absolution " 
 (or a baptism). Here note, 1. Previously, as we have seen, he 
 said of Christ, " profusionem sanguinis baptisma nominavit." Here 
 he conveys the same idea in other words, when he says, " Martyrium 
 baptismus appellatur." 2. He gives us express reasons for this use 
 of terms. The martyrs are victims like Christ ; like his, their death 
 has an atoning or purging power, and because of this power their 
 death is to them a baptism, i. e. a purification. Indeed, had Origen 
 designed to give a concise definition of the sacrificial sense which 
 I have assigned to the word (BairrKfixog, he could not have been more 
 exact. " Quod autem quis in passione remissionem accipit pec- 
 catorum baptismus est." Because any one through his suffering 
 receives the remission of sins, it is a purification — a xa^apicT/jioV — 
 a fSuirrKfii.o^ . It is not called a baptism, because the martyr is 
 immersed, for in fact he is not. This is not even thought of; it is 
 totally out of the mind. But it is so called simply because, by 
 suflTering, by effusion of blood, he secures the forgiveness of sin.* 
 But that effusion of blood, which secures the forgiveness of sins, 
 
 * Hence the expressions to P'n:Tiana 6id naprvpiov, or did naOovs, or 6i* 
 aijiaTos. Purification by martyrdom, by suffering, by blood, not immersion 
 in martyrdom, &c. __ 
 
06 BAPTISM OF BLOOD. CASE OF MARTYRS. § 26. 
 
 is always called xaSapKfp.6g, and never an immersion, because in 
 fact there is no immersion in the case. An expiatory offering is 
 never called an immersion. The making an atonement by blood, 
 is never called the making of an immersion. He who pardons 
 through blood, is always said to purify, to purge, to cleanse by 
 blood, but never to immerse by, or with, or in blood. Now, 
 though the idea that the blood of martyrs has an atoning or 
 purging power is false, yet it does not in the least diminish the 
 force of the argument. We are inquiring how Origen expressed 
 his belief that the blood of martyrs was a purgation from sin, and 
 not whether his opinions were correct. In perfect accordance 
 with these ideas, Chrysostom says of the martyrs in the hour of 
 death, " that they have the Spirit copiously," that " their sins are 
 taken away," that " there is a wonderful purification of the mind," 
 xa&apixog, and " as others are purified, (Sairrl^ovTai, in water, these 
 are washed, Xo;;ovTaj, in their own blood." 
 
 So Gregory Naz., speaking of the baptism of blood, says : " it 
 is more august than the rest," those of water, tears, etc. — 
 because, after it the martyr is polluted no more (ou jULoXuvsrai). 
 The same ideas are also found in the writings of Augustine, and 
 in those of his antagonists, thus proving themselves to be the 
 prevailing ideas of the age. See his work De Civitate Dei, lib. 
 13, cap. 7, also lib. 2, cap. 23, of his treatise contra literas Peti- 
 liani, where Petilianus uses the expression : " Similes Christo 
 martyres, quos post aquam veri baptismi, sanguis baptista per- 
 fundit," i. e. whom their own blood, as a purifier, cleanses or 
 washes. So for indeed was this idea carried, that, as we have 
 seen, the purification by blood was even more desired than the 
 purification by water, though to this also they attached an exag- 
 gerated, and almost miraculous power. Nor have I found any 
 evidence that the passages in Luke xii. 50, Mark x. 38, 39, Matt. 
 XX. 22, 23, were ever understood by any of the Fathers in the 
 sense either of immersion or overwhelming. They seem uni- 
 versally to have referred them to the baptism of blood, and to 
 have taken the words /Sa-TTTjCjuooj and ISaifrit^o) in the sacrificial 
 
§ 26. BAPTISM OF BLOOD. CASE OF MARTYRS. 67 
 
 sense — to purify. Now I do not think that in these passages the 
 words have that sense. I regard them as instances in which the 
 word is used in the sense to overwhehTi with cares, and agony of 
 body and mind. But this only shows how deeply fixed and strong 
 was the usus loquendi for wdiich I contend ; for it was so powerful 
 as even to overrule the true sense, in cases where the word obvi- 
 ously departs from the sense to purify.* And if it was sufficiently 
 powerful to force the sense to purify on the word, even when it 
 does not belong there, are we to suppose that it was not powerful 
 enough to retain it, in instances where all the facts of the case 
 show that it truly belongs ? In view of these facts, which are a 
 small part only of those which might be adduced, I am utterly 
 unable to resist the conviction, that to purify, was clearly, and so 
 far as I have observed, universally the religious sense of the word 
 iSairri^u among the Fathers. 
 
 I do not indeed affirm that they did not, any of them, at any 
 time, use it as a religious term to denote immersion. To say this 
 intelligently, would require a certainty that every usage of it by 
 the Fathers had been seen, which, in my case, certainly is not 
 true. But I must say, that even if such cases can be found, they 
 will not disprove my position. They can only prove inconsistent 
 usage ; and this I have already admitted would be nothing strange, 
 and might even be expected in writers so numerous and so 
 various. Still, when I consider the extreme power of the usage 
 which I have proved, when I find it clearly and decidedly, even 
 in the eleventh century, I am inclined to believe that a general 
 perception of the true sense was not lost or obscured, till the 
 Greek language itself sank in the ruins of the Eastern enfjiire ; 
 and that the present state of opinion has been produced by party 
 spirit, and by the mistakes of learned men to whom the Greek 
 was a dead language, and who, being familiar with the style and 
 usage of classic Greek, as that which holds the earliest and 
 primary place in the modern systems of education, have allowed 
 
 * Reflection has convinced me that the Fathers are right, and that in 
 these passages also, (SanTi^o) has the sense to purify. 
 
68 PRINCIPLES, AS TO CO-EXISTENT" SENSES. § 27. 
 
 it to expel the true spiritual and sacred sense of the word, and in 
 place of it, to introduce a merely physical, and, too often, barren 
 and profitless external act. 
 
 In opposition to this, the opinion of the Greek church is often 
 alleged as decisive in favor of the meaning immerse. Being by 
 najne the Greek church, it is inferred that they must, o£ course, 
 be good judges of the import of a Greek word. In reply to this, 
 I would ask : Is modern Italian ancient Latin ? If not, neither is 
 modern Greek ancient Greek. That modern Greek resembles 
 its parent stock, more than modern Italian does the Latin, I do 
 not deny. But the resemblance is not such that the opinion of a 
 modern Greek scholar, on a point like this, is worth any more 
 than that of a modern German, Italian, or English scholar. No 
 man can form an opinion on this subject except by a study of the 
 facts found in the ancient writers who exhibit the usage in ques- 
 tion ; and his opinion is worth most who most carefully investi- 
 gates, compares, classifies, and judges in view of the whole case. 
 And if this be so, the opinions of the modern Greek church, un- 
 sustained by argument, ought to have no peculiar weight. Their 
 proficiency in philological studies certainly does not exceed that 
 of other European scholars, to say nothing of those of America. 
 
 § 27. Principles, as to co-existent senses. 
 
 The passage in 2 Kings v. 14, is often alleged as decisive 
 proof that (Saitri^u means immerse. The facts are these. The 
 prophet commanded Naaman to wash seven times in Jordan, using 
 f n^.* In obeying the command it is said bitJ/^'^ Sept. s^a'xr'Ktaro 
 seven times. It is said to be universally conceded that b^Q means 
 immerse only. I reply, it is not so conceded. Even Dr. Carson 
 allows that it has passed to the sense to dye, without respect to 
 mode. Why then could it not pass to the sense to wash, without 
 respect to mode ? Scholars of the first eminence believe and af- 
 firm that it did. Of these it is enough to mention Suicer. He 
 affirms that the word is here the equivalent both of yn^ and 
 
§ 28. COINCIDENT FACTS. 69 
 
 fSa'Ttri^u, in the sense to wash.* Nor can it be disproved, for it is 
 in perfect analogy with other known facts in language. Even if 
 the sense immerse is here admitted, it only proves the coexistence 
 of the secular sense immerse with the religious sense purify, and 
 that in this case there was a desire to fix the mind on the mode of 
 washing. Take a parallel case. Dr. Carson admits the coex- 
 istence in (SaTTTu of the sense to dye and to dip. Suppose now an 
 order to dye a cloth is given, and in narrating its execution, it is 
 said, a man dipped it seven times in a dye-tub, and in each case 
 /Sa-TTTw is used. Does the fact that it means dip in the last case 
 prove that it does not mean dye in the first ? Cannot two different 
 meanings of a word coexist even in the same sentence ? Can it 
 not be said, I drank out of this spring last spring 1 How then 
 could the use of the word (Saitri^c,} to denote an act here, prove 
 tl.at it does not mean purify elsewhere ? On neither ground, then, 
 has the passage any force. For first, it cannot be proved that the 
 word here means to dip ; and secondly, if it could, it would be 
 nothing to the purpose. 
 
 § 28. Coincident Facts. 
 
 It only remains that I adduce, as I proposed, a large amount of 
 coincident facts, sustaining and giving verisimilitude to the whole. 
 
 1. The early and decidedly predominant idea of the rite was, 
 that it was the appointed, and almost the only means of obtaining 
 the remission of sins. How natural, now, that its name should 
 indicate this idea ? It does, if fBwn'TKfix.og is taken in the sacrificial 
 sense xa^a^iCjuioV, but not if taken in the sense immersion. A 
 proof that (SaitrKfixos is taken in the sacrificial sense is found in its 
 equivalents in Latin and Greek ; remissio peccatorum, acpscfis 
 a/xapTJOJv, ajLiapTiwv xadapcfig, oi(ps(jig -rXiifjL/xsXyiiuLaTwv. These and 
 similar phrases are used as the names of the rite, and are obvi- 
 ously mere equivalents of xa6ccpi(f^6g. See § 55. 
 
 * Fuerstius, in the learned lexicon contained in his Concordance, defines 
 '^'n.'o rigare, tingere, perfundere, and last of all immergere. To wet, to 
 wash, to perfuse, to immerse. 
 
70 COINCIDENT FACTS. § 28. 
 
 2. The words with which /Sa-Tr'T/^w is interchanged, in giving 
 variety to the style, and preventing the too frequent repetition of 
 the same word, show that it is used by the Fathers in the sense of 
 purify. In such interchanges, we always expect the fundamental 
 idea of the leading term to be retained ; or some one into which 
 it easily passes, and with which it has a natural affinity. The 
 class of words that has an affinity to the idea xa^aPi'^w, is very 
 large. In Greek they are Xoi^w, ayia^u, ayvj'^w, dvaysvvaw, etc.; 
 in Latin, purgo, mundo, emundo, lavo, abluo, diluo, eluo, 
 perfundo ; together with the nouns and participles derived from 
 them, as Xour^ov, ayvicfixog, etc., purgatio, lavatio, lavacrum, eniun- 
 datus, ablutus, etc. The class of words that has an affinity to 
 the idea immersion is small, as it is a mere external act. Now 
 let three facts be noted. 1, The range of equivalents, or substi- 
 tutes for /3a':rT/^w, is in fact large. 2. They are all of the class 
 having affinity to xa^a^i^w ; and there is a great readiness to pass 
 into any mode of speech equivalent or analogous to it, or derivable 
 from it. 3. There is no readiness to use equivalents of immersion, 
 except in cases in which, for some particular reason, it is intended 
 to give prominence to the form of purifying. Let any one read 
 Augustine's controversies with the Donatists, and his various 
 works on baptism, the works of Origen, or any of the Greek Fa- 
 thers who have written much on the subject, and he will easily 
 find the same thing. It is impossible by a few quotations to give 
 an idea of the impression produced by noticing such facts in pas- 
 sages of considerable extent. 
 
 3. When it is desired to speak definitely of immersion as an 
 act, [BwjrrKfixos is not generally used, but xaTcuSutfig ; and for emer- 
 sion, ava(Juo'ij. See Suicer on these words. Why is this, if 
 (3a<7rri(r^.6s never means anything but immersion ? 
 
 4. On the other hand, in the Apostolic Constitutions, Can. L., 
 the expression Tpia ^a-jfriVjULara ^kiag ixvrjdsus occurs, in which <rpja 
 (3airli(rix.ala denotes three acts of immersion, but not the name of 
 the rite ; for in trine immersion, three immersions are necessary 
 to one purification. And if the expression were understood to 
 
§ 28. COINCIDENT FACTS. 71 
 
 mean three purifications, the idea would be false ; for three im- 
 mersions make but one purification. Lest any misunderstanding 
 should arise, a note was deemed necessary by Zonaras, informing 
 the reader that (Sa-usVidiJ.ala here means ycaloLdudsig, and fj-u'/io'tj de- 
 notes the rite as a whole, i. e. is used for (Sa-mlicfixa. He there- 
 fore says, Ipia (^a-mlldiiala, ivlav&a 7dcg IpsTg xalado<fsig (pyiCi'v. As 
 much as to say (Sa-uilKf^a, is not here used in its common import, 
 but denotes the act of immersion, so that the passage means, not 
 three purifications, as you might suppose, but three immersions 
 and one purification. Why this care to explain, and to state that 
 ^oizili(fixala, in this case — ivluv&a — means immersions, if it never 
 has any other meaning ? But if its common meaning is purifica- 
 tion, all is plain. We see too the use of the word xara^utfj?. It 
 was uni vocal : jSairriG'ixos was equivocal, and in its common re- 
 ligious sense denoted purification. 
 
 From this case in the Apostolic Constitutions, and from the 
 closing remarks on /Sa-rr/^w in 2 Kings v. 14, the following gene- 
 ral principles may be derived, which will be of great use in a 
 critical investigation of the meanings of this word in the Fathers. 
 1. In speaking of baptism, the two senses, immerse and purify, 
 are sometimes both used. 2. They are applied to the rite in dif- 
 ferent ways, and for different ends. Taken in the sense of pu- 
 rify, /Sa-Tr-rj^oj denotes the real import of the rite and the thing en- 
 joined, and is used in the sacrificial and religious sense ; but 
 when it denotes the act of immersion, it is not used to denote the 
 real import of the rite, nor in the religious sense, but simply to 
 denote a physical act, i. e. a mode in which purification may be 
 performed. For example, suppose an ancient bishop to have or- 
 dered a priest to purify,- i. e. baptize a man. The priest obeys, 
 and immerses him three times, according to the principles of trine 
 immersion ; and in describing rtiis trine immersion, uses the word 
 jSa-TTTi^w in the sense of immerse. Here both senses of the word 
 are used in relation to the same rite. In the first instance, it is 
 used in the sacred sense of purify ; in the second, in the secular 
 sense to denote a 7node of purifying. 3. Whenever (oa-ffrKfiiarcc 
 
72 COINCIDENT FACTS. § 28. 
 
 is used with the numeral three, in describing a single baptism, of 
 course it is used in the secular sense, as the name of an act ; be- 
 cause in such a case, the purijicatmi is but one, whilst the immer- 
 sions are three. 4. To prove the existence of the secular sense 
 as indicating the existing mode of a religious washing, does not 
 disprove the existence of the religious sense as the name of the rite 
 itself This shows the fallacy of all arguments based on 2 Kings 
 V. 14. 5. To guard against the ambiguity produced by apply- 
 ing the same word to the rite in two senses, xaTaSu(fig was used 
 to denote immersion, leaving to ^k'n'ritfi^a the religious sense of 
 purification. 
 
 5. Although immersion was deemed of immense importance, 
 yet its necessity was never defended on philological grounds ; and 
 leave was conceded to sprinkle, in extraordinary cases, on such 
 grounds as plainly show that they did not feel bound by the im- 
 port of the word. Hear Cyprian : " Neque enim sic in Sacra- 
 mento salutari, delictorum contagia, ut in lavacro carnali et secu- 
 lari, sordes cutis et corporis abluuntur, ut aphronitris et cseteris 
 quoque adjumentis et solio et piscina opus sit, quibus ablui et 
 mundari corpusculum possit. Aliter pectus credentis abluitur, 
 aliter mens hominis per fidei meritum mundatur." Notice now, 
 that this whole passage, designed to prove that a man may be bap- 
 tized by sprinkling, depends for its force entirely on assigning to 
 the word the sense to purify. His argument in brief is this ; the 
 power of baptism to purify from sin, does not depend on the quan- 
 tity of water used, but upon the internal faith of the person bap- 
 tized. "In baptism," he says, "the pollution of sin is not wash- 
 ed away, as the pollution of the body and skin is washed away in 
 an external, physical bath, so that there is need of saltpetre (or 
 nitre (see Jer. ii. 22), and other auxiliary means, and a bath or 
 pool, in which the body can be washed and purified. Far other- 
 wise is the breast of the believer washed ; far otherwise is the 
 mind of a man purified from sin by the merits of faith." From 
 all this he inferred that a man might properly be baptized, if 
 necessary, by sprinkling. But how could he do this, if he knew 
 
§ 28. COINCIDENT FACTS. 73 
 
 that the command was not to purify but to immerse ? On tliis 
 ground all such reasoning would be vain. Any one could have 
 replied : " The command is not to purify, but to immerse ; and 
 you cannot immerse without immersion ; and sprinkling is no 
 immersion at all." But such an idea does not seem to have en- 
 tered Cyprian's mind. To him plainly the only command was a 
 command to purify. The word baptize does not indeed occur ; 
 but evident synonymes of it are used, as abluo and mundo. I 
 know not how we can obtain stronger testimony to the prevailing 
 opinion of the age than this ; and it is the stronger because indi- 
 rect and undesigned. 
 
 6. In explaining the similitude between baptism and the salva 
 tion of Noah in the ark, also between baptism and the passage of 
 the Israelites through the Red Sea — 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21, and 1 Cor. 
 X. 1, 2 — Noah and the Israelites are not looked on as immersed, 
 but merely as imrijied, or saved ; and that too by the same ele- 
 ment which overwhelmed and destroyed the enemies of God. 
 They even go so far as to speak of the ivicked as immersed, by 
 way of antithesis to the righteous, who are not immersed, but only 
 purified and saved. This view is based on the expression in 
 Peter, " saved by water," as applied to the eight souls who were 
 saved by water in the ark. To be purified, with them was equi- 
 valent to being sanctified, or being saved ; and in looking at bap- 
 tism, their minds were fixed on this idea. " Now," said they, 
 " as in baptism water saves, so in the flood it saved, and so in the 
 Red Sea it saved ; not by overwhelming Noah or the Israelites, 
 but by dividing them from the enemies of God, and by over- 
 whelming and immersing those enemies. And its similarity to 
 baptism lies only in the fact, that it saves or purifies the people of 
 God. Augustine (Sermo de Cataclysmo, Vol. ix. p. 320, Paris, 
 ed. 1586) speaks of the Israelites delivered out of Egypt, as has- 
 tening to the Red Sea, "that they may be saved by water ;" the 
 Egyptians follow, the sea opens, the Israelites pass through, the 
 Egyptians enter, then, " Unum elementum aquarum, auctore 
 totius, create re jubente, judicavit utrosque ; separavit enim pios 
 
 4 
 
74 COINCIDENT FACTS. § 28. 
 
 ab impiis. Illos alluit, istos olruii ; illos 7iiundamt, istos occidit,'" 
 " One element, water, by the command of the Creator, judged 
 both ; for it separated the rigliteous from the wicked. The former 
 it washed, the latter it overwhelmed j the former it purified, the 
 latter it destroyed." He then speaks of Moses as a type of 
 Christ, his rod as a type of the cross^ and the Red Sea as a type 
 of the waters of baptism, purpled by the blood of Christ. Now 
 compare with this the anxious efforts of our Baptist brethren, to 
 prove that in some way the Israelites were immersed. Augustine 
 says, they were imslied and purified, and the Egyptians over- 
 whelmed (and of course immersed) and destroyed. 
 
 It is quite certain that no man, who believed and was anxious 
 to prove that immersion was the sense and the only sense of /SaTT- 
 Titffjio^, would ever have used this language. In like manner, 
 comparing the salvation of Noah and his family to the salvation 
 effected by baptism, he often calls the flood a sacrament ; and 
 compares its effects to those of baptism. He compares the church 
 to the ark ; and one out of the church, and unbaptized, to one out 
 of the ark ; and his fate to the fate of one so excluded. Concern- 
 ing the one who perishes out of the ark, he says : '^ suhmersus est 
 diluvio non dblutusJ^ Hence he regarded those in the ark, who 
 were saved, as abluii, i.e. purified or saved, and those out of it, as 
 suhmersi, i. e. submersedy or immersed and destroyed. All this he 
 says in commenting on 1 Pet. iii. 20, 21. See Lib. 1, Cap. 21, 
 Vol. vi. p. 253. Here then he opposes the righteous who were 
 purified, but not immersed, to the wicked who were immersed, but 
 not purified ; and regards one as saved hy purification, and the 
 other as destroyed by immersion. Would any modern advocate of 
 immersion have ever written so ? For the true sense of 1 Pet. iii. 
 20, 21, see § 18. 
 
 7. Elias is spoken of by Origen as baptizing the wood in the 
 sense of purifying it. The passage is this. Origen is comment- 
 ing on John i. 25 : " Why baptizest thou, if thou be not the 
 Christ, nor Elias, nor that prophet ?" He is aiming to show that 
 they had no reason to suppose that Elias would baptize in person 
 
§ 28. COINCIDENT FACTS. 75 
 
 when he should come. The reason is this. Ahhough the wood 
 needed purification, yet he did not baptize, purify, it himself, but 
 told others to do it. His words are : OuSs ra s'kI ^utfiatfryj^iov |uXa, 
 xa-ra ro\Jg tou ^A-)(aaM p^^ovou^, ^'so'ju.sva Xout^ou i'va SJcxau^/j S'K'Kpavsvrog 
 sv 'ff'u^/, Tou xu^i'ou, ^aitridavTog' S'n'ixsXsvSTai ya^ toTs U^sv(fi touto 
 *o/73(j'a». " Who did not baptize — purify — the wood upon the 
 altar in the days of Ahab, although it needed to be purified, in 
 order that it might be burned when the Lord should be revealed 
 in fire ; for he commanded the priest to do this." In this case 
 the words ^uXa ^so'ixsvo. Xout^ou, beyond all dispute, fix the sense, 
 and show that he regarded the pouring as a rite of purification, 
 and used ^am'ri^oj in its usual religious sense. In this view, the 
 passage remarkably falls in with and confirms the reasoning in 
 § 9 ; and proves that Origen understood them to inquire in John 
 i. 25 : " Why purifiest thou?^' This passage also is in perfect ac- 
 cordance with those already quoted from his writings. 
 
 8. It was a natural inquiry of old, as now : " Why was Christ 
 baptized ?" In answering this question, the Fathers do not say, 
 as does Prof. Chase, he was immersed " as a fit and striking em- 
 blematical declaration of his voluntarily yielding himself up to 
 his suflferings, with the confidence of emerging ;" because " to 
 represent one as overwhelmed in the water was a well-known 
 figure to indicate deep affliction." See Chase's Sermon on the 
 Design of Baptism, p. 13. They do not try to answer the ques- 
 tion : " Why was he immersed .?" but solely the question : " Why 
 was he purified ?" And in those passages where ^olt^t'i^i^ really 
 means overwhelm,* they retain, as we have seen, the sense of pu- 
 rify. Various answers were given. In general they all denied 
 that he was purified because he had any sin ; and most commonly 
 they added, that he was purified in order to give to the water of 
 baptism a purifying power. See § 21, ^uvafxjv sv^s»va» xa^a^TixTjv. 
 Augustine says : " Aquae quse caetera mundare consueverant, 
 Domino nostro lavante, mundatee sunt." " The waters which 
 
 * According to common modern usage, I now agree with the Fathers. 
 
76 COINCIDENT FACTS. § 28. 
 
 were accustomed to purify other things, when our Lord was 
 washed in them, were purified." He also says it was to give an 
 example of humility, and to honor the rite so that others should 
 not despise it. Their difficulties were caused by the idea purifp, 
 as applied to Christ ; to this their answers correspond ; and they 
 do not correspond with the views of those who believe that the 
 word means immerse. Can we doubt, then, what was the general 
 understanding of the word ? Had they regarded the word as our 
 Baptist brethren do, would they not have given their solution of 
 the question 1 
 
 9. In speaking of the baptism of the Holy Spirit, they do not 
 speak of it as an inward spiritual immersion, but as an inward 
 spiritual purification. Gregory Nyss. calls baptism ^iTiri xa^ap- 
 tfjj. As we have a body and a soul, so we need a twofold cleans- 
 ing, 6C '-u^oiiog xoLi -uivsuixalog 7a /Sa^y) xa&aipovloi;. To denote the 
 internal baptism here, he uses xa&aipoo, and calls the external and 
 internal together 6illri xa&ap(jis, a twofold cleansing. Augustine 
 says : Baptizatur a Joanne in carne ; sed ipse Joannem in Spiritu 
 lavat. " He is purified by John in the flesh, but he washes, or 
 purifies John in the Spirit." So he says : " Quod enim dicimus 
 ipse baptizat, non dicimus ipse tenet, et in aqua corpus credentis 
 tingit ; sed ipse invisibiliter mimdat et hoc universam prorsus ec- 
 clesiam." " When we say that Christ baptizes, we do not say 
 that he holds, and washes in water the body of the believer, but 
 that he invisibly purifies him, and not only him, but the whole 
 church." Lib. iii. c. 49. In the Fathers, such passages are of 
 constant occurrence ; but in none of them is found the strange, 
 incongruous, and modern idea of an internal and spiritual immer- 
 sion into the Holy Spirit and fire. Comp. § 10. Origen contrasts 
 those who are "loti aqua," with those who are " sancto spiritu loti." 
 
 10. In speaking of the Jiacpo^oj fSa-rrrKf^oi, Heb. ix. 10, they 
 invariably regard them as purifications of persons, not as immer- 
 sions of things. See § 14. In an enumeration of the various 
 kinds of baptism, often ascribed toAthanasius — an unexceptionable 
 witness as to the usus loquendi of that century — it is said, as an 
 explanation of the ^jaqjo^oi (SwjTTKf^j.oi, <Kag ya^ axoL&a^Tog sXovsro 
 
§ 28. COINCIDENT FACTS. 77 
 
 vSari. " Every one who was unclean was washed in water." 
 Theophylact says, more particularly, that a man was washed in 
 water, and thus purified, scav vsx^ov ri-^aro, xa\i Xstt^ov, xom yoMo^^vris 
 sysvSTQ rig, " If he had touched a dead body, or a leper, or had 
 an issue." With this comp. (Saitn^oiLZvog dito vsx^ov, § 16. Ma- 
 carius says : yjv ita^'' dvroXg ^d'rrTicf^.a tfa^xa a^ia^ov, -Tfap' tj/xm/ 
 /Sa'TTTjo'iJLa ayiov 'K'vsv^.a-rog xul ':fv^og. " There was with them a 
 baptism purifying the flesh, but with us is the baptism of the 
 Holy Spirit and of fire." In this he manifestly refers to 
 Hcb. ix. 13: ''the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, 
 sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh ; " for his use of 
 ayici^oj and r'a^f is clearly taken from Paul. Of course, he re- 
 gards this sprinkling as a f3air-KfiJ.a. Tertullian says : Judseus 
 quotidie lavat, quia quotidie inquinatur : quod ne in nobis facti- 
 taretur, propterea de uno Ifivacro definitum est. " The Jew 
 washes daily, because he is daily defiled : that we might not 
 need to do this, he definitely established one washing." 
 
 11. In speaking of the baptism of fire, the fathei's regard it, 
 not as an immersion, but as a purification or purgation ; and 
 from this use the idea of a future purgatory came. A few re- 
 garded the fire spoken of in the words, " he shall baptize you 
 with the Holy Ghost and with fire," as referring to punishment, 
 as some do even now. But others of them regarded it as the puri- 
 fying fire of the Holy Spirit. Others believed in a literal fire of 
 purification after death, particularly Origen. In Hom. 24, on 
 Luke iii. 16, he speaks of Jesus as purifying in a river of fire, 
 each one who, after death, and before entering heaven, needs to 
 be purged, "qui purgatione indiget." Hom. 2, on Jer., he says : 
 " Itaque et Jesus baptizat spiritu sancto et igne, non quia eundem 
 in spiritu sancto atque igne baptizet : scd quia sanctus baptizetur 
 spiritu sancto, et is qui post fidem et magisterium Dei rursus ad 
 scelera conversus est, cruciatu purgeiur incendii. Beatus qui 
 lavacrum accepit spiritus sancti, et ignis hivacro non indiget. 
 Miserabilis autem, et omni fletu dignus, qui, post lavacrum 
 spiritus, haptizandus est igni." " Therefore Jesus also baptizes 
 with the Holy Spirit and with fire. Not because he baptizes the 
 
78 COINCIDENT FACTS. § 28. 
 
 same person with the Holy Spirit and with fire, but because he 
 who is holy, is baptized with the Holy Spirit ; but he who turns 
 to sin after professing his faith and submitting to God, is purified 
 by the torments of fire. Blessed is he who has received the 
 purification of the Holy Spirit, and does not need the purification 
 of fire. Miserable is he, and deserving of tears, who, after the puri- 
 fication of the Spirit, needs to be purified (baptizandus) with fire." 
 
 In the Greek text of Origen, the word /3a'7rTj(^w is used where 
 the Latin translator uses lavacrum. Thus, fxajcapjoj o ^aim^oii.svog 
 iv dyKfj irvsv^ari. Beatus qui lavacrum accepit spiritus sancti. 
 
 If Jerome or Rufinus was the translator, as I suppose, it is a 
 direct testimony that (SaitTi^u) did not mean to immerse, and that, 
 by one perfectly qualified to judge. So /3a'7r-riV|xaTo^ tov ct'Tfo 
 ifv^os corresponds to " ignis lavacro." A little after he speaks 
 of " peccator qui ignis indiget hapiisino, qui combustione pur- 
 gatur.^' "The sinner who needs the baptism of fire, who is 
 purged by burning." In his Comment, in Epist. ad Rom. 
 Lib. 8, he says : " Ut ignis gehennse in cruciatibus purget 
 quern nee apostolica doctrina, nee evangelicus sermo purgavit, 
 secundum illud quod est scriptum, purijicaho te igni ad purifca- 
 tionem.'^ " That the fire of Gehenna may purify him by tor- 
 ments, whom neither the apostolical doctrine nor the evangelical 
 truth purified, according to that which is written, I will purify 
 thee with fire, in order to make thee pure." Here baptizo, purgo, 
 purifico, and lavo (involved in lavacro), are all used as synony- 
 mous terms in describing the baptism of fire. If Gieseler is cor- 
 rect (Vol. i. ^119, note 14), this purgation of Origen is not to 
 be confounded with the Roman Catholic purgatory, first suggest- 
 ed, as he says, by Augustine. Neither the opinion of Origen 
 nor of Augustine is correct ; yet they show as clearly as if true, 
 that by the baptism of fire, a jnirgation hy fire, and not an wimersion, 
 was meant. Clearly they had in mind the words of Malachi : " he 
 is like a refiner's fire," and, " he shall purify and purge.'^ These 
 words gave rise to the expression in the gospel : " He shall purify 
 you with the Holy Ghost and with fire." Taking the word 
 
§ 28. COINCIDENT FACTS. 79 
 
 ^(tifri^CA) in this sense, we can clearly see how the various and 
 erroneous forms of the doctrine of imrgatory grew out of it. 
 Compare §§9, 10. 
 
 12. In speaking of the baptism of tears, the Fathers regard it 
 as a purification by tears, and not as an immersion in tears. The 
 very nature of the case shows that it must have been so, and the 
 langjuage of the Fathers proves that t!ie purifying power of tears 
 did not depend on .having a quantity sufficient for an immersion. 
 Says Nilus, Aout>5^ ayaMg Irjs NJ^up^yjg-, Ir^g ':^^(jB\j-)(Y,g 7o ^ax^uov. 
 *' The tear of prayer" — not a flood or river, or ocean of tears — 
 " the tear of prayer is a good wasb-basin of the soul." For this 
 use of AouT>5^, see § 16, and the idea there given of washing the 
 hands of the soul. So Gregory Nyss. calls tears Xout^ov xaroixi- 
 ^lov xoLi x^ovovs Idiovg di' wv s(fV lag x-f{K\5ag Ir^g -^^xj-^fig a-coovjsj^atf^ai, 
 *' a domestic washing place and fountains of your own, by 
 means of which you can wash off the pollution of your soul." 
 ^ At^'ov 4^700, as no one can den}'', never denotes immersion, but 
 commonly, the washing of hands and feet. From the nature of 
 the case then, as well as from the language of the Fathers, we are 
 certain that they regarded the baptism of tears, not as an immer- 
 sion, but as a purification. 
 
 13. The Fathers applied passages of the Old Testament com- 
 manding washing, or predicting purification, to the rite of baptism 
 in such a way, as evinces a belief that iSaitri^cj) means to purify. 
 
 In Is. i. 16, is a command to wash and make clean — Heb. 
 ^S^n nirri'i, Sept. Ao^tfaCds, xa&apol yiv£(f&s — Vulg. lavamini, mundi 
 estote. Justin Martyr and Hippolytus regard this as an antici- 
 pation, or prophetic injunction of baptism. Hippolytus says : 
 ^' Prophcta Isaias Baptismi \\m imrgatii^am prsedixit, cum ait, lava- 
 mini, mundi estote."* Cyprian, Jerome, and others apply to bap- 
 tism the prediction : " I will sprinkle clean water upon you, and 
 ye shall be clean." Now, if they regarded ^anfTi^(^ as a syno- 
 
 * For Justin'-s view see § 00. See, also, Basil on Is. iv. 4, as another 
 fact, § 55. 
 
80 COII^CIDENT FACTS- § 28, 
 
 nyme ofxa^api'^w, all this is plain and natural; for in one of 
 these cases imrificaiion is cGmmanded, in the other it is predicted^ 
 but in neither is immersion mentioned. The only external act 
 alluded to is sprinkling. I desire that here may be noted the 
 useofyni, in Isa. i. 16. By this word all the commands for 
 personal ablution in the Mosaic ritual are given, and to it, I re- 
 marked, § 14, (Swirrl^u) would naturally become a synony^ne. 
 Here is proof that it did so become. And this word always 
 denotes washing, without respect to mode, and never imn>ersion. 
 14. From the time of the clinic baptism of Novatian, down to 
 the Reformation, there were cases of baptism by afiusion or 
 sprinkling, defended on grounds similar to those stated by Cyprian 
 (No. 5), and totally inconsistent witli the idea that they felt bound 
 by the word /DaTrri^w to regard nothing as a baptism that was not 
 an immersion. All this is plain, and easily accounted for, if they 
 regarded ^aiind^i^g merely as a purification, to be performed in 
 common cases, by immersion, and in extraordinary cases, by af- 
 fusion or sprinkling. It shows that tlieir attachment to the mode 
 did not depend on (SaiiTi^u, but on a regard to general practice, 
 and its supposed significance. Constantino the Great was. bap- 
 tized by sprinkling on his bed. In 499, Clodovius, king of the 
 Franks, was baptized by affusion. Gennadius, of Marseilles, 
 A. D. 490, says, that the baptized person is either sprinkled or 
 immersed — vel aspergitur, vel intingitur. For other clear and 
 striking cases, see Eond, pp. 42 — 50 ; where he clearly proves, 
 that immersion was never considered as essential to baptism till 
 after the Reformation. The bearing of all these facts on the 
 meaning of the word is irresistible. Had it been regarded as de- 
 manding immersion, when there was such a universal attach- 
 ment to that mode, a deviation would have been resisted on phi- 
 lological grounds ; but, though frequent and extensive deviations 
 took place, they -were never so resisted. The conclusion is 
 inevitable — they could not be so resisted ; it was universally 
 known that /Sa-Trrj^w, as a religious term, mmnt to purify, not to 
 immerse. 
 
§ 28. COINCIDENT FACTS. 81 
 
 1.5. To conclude, the idea of purification is, in the nature of 
 things, better adapted to be the name of the rite, than immersion. 
 It has a fitness and verisimilitude in all its extensive variety of 
 usage, which cause the mind to feel the self-evidencing power of 
 truth, as producing harmony and agreement in the most minute, 
 as well as in the most important relations of the various parts of 
 this subject to each other. This is owing to three facts : 1. The 
 idea of purification is the fundamental idea in the whole subject. 
 2. It is an idea complete and definite in itself in every sense, and 
 needs no adjunct to make it more so. 3. It is the soul and cen- 
 tre of a whole circle of delightful ideas and words. It throws 
 out before the mind a flood of rich and glorious thoughts, and is 
 adapted to operate on the feelings like a perfect charm. To a 
 sinner, desiring salvation, what two ideas so delightful as forgive- 
 ness and purity ? Both are condensed into this one word. It 
 involves in itself a deliverance from the guilt of sin, and from its 
 pollution. It is a purification from sin in every sense. See § 12. 
 It is purification by the atonement, and purification by the truth, 
 — by water and by blood. And around these ideas cluster 
 others likewise, of holiness, salvation, eternal joy, eternal life. 
 No word can produce such delight on the heart, and send such a 
 flood of light into all the relations of divine truth ; for purification, 
 in the broad Scripture sense, is the joy and salvation of man, and 
 the crowning glory of God. Of immersion none of these things 
 are true. 1. Immersion is not a fundamental idea in any sub- 
 ject or system. 2. By itself, it does not convey any one fixed 
 idea, but depends upon its adjuncts, and varies with them. Im- 
 mersion ? In M"hat ? Clean water, or filthy ; in a dyeing fluid, or 
 in wine ? Until these questions are answered, the word is of no 
 use. And with the spiritual sense the case is still worse ; for 
 common usage limits it in English, Latin, Greek, and so far as I 
 know, in all languages, by adjuncts of a kind denoting calamity 
 or degradation, and never purity. It has intimate and firmly es- 
 tablished associations with such words as luxury, ease, indolence, 
 sloth, cares, anxieties, troubles, distresses, sins, pollution. We 
 
 41= 
 
82 COINCIDENT FACTS. § 28. 
 
 familiarly speak of immersion in all these, but with their opposites 
 it refuses alliance. We never speak of a person as immersed in 
 temperance, fortitude, industry, diligence, tranquillity, prosperity, 
 holiness, purity, etc. Sinking and downward motion are natu- 
 rally allied with ideas which, in a moral sense, are depressed, 
 and not with such as are morally elevated. Very few exceptions 
 to this general law exist, and these do not destroy its power. 
 Now, for what reason should the God of order," purity, harmony, 
 and taste, select an idea so alien from his own beloved rite, for its 
 name, and reject one in every respect so desirable and so fit ? 
 Who does not feel that the name of so delightful an idea as puri- 
 fication must be the name of the rite ? And who does not rejoice 
 that there is proof so unanswerable, that it is ? 
 
 The philological argument is now closed. Whatever may be 
 the interpretation of Romans vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, the ques- 
 tion of philology must remain untouched. All that they can 
 prove, at most, is the fact, that those to whom Paul wrote were 
 immersed, and that he deemed immersion a significant act. Nei- 
 ther of these do they prove, in my opinion ; for which I propose 
 soon to give my reasons. But if they did, it is impossible, as we 
 have shown, to settle the question of philology by early practice. 
 Even if they did immerse, it was only a mode of purification ; 
 and it was baptism, not because it was immersion, but because it 
 was purification. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 THE INTERPRETATION OF ROM. VI. 3, 4, AND COL. II. 12. 
 
 § 29. Importance of a correct Interpretation of Rom, vi. 3, 4, 
 and CoL ii, 12, 
 
 The conclusion to which we have arrived by our previous in- 
 quiries is this : Purification is enjoined by a specific command, 
 but no particular mode of purification is enjoined. Of course, 
 any individual may be lawfully purified in the way that he pre- 
 fers. No result can be more desirable than this, for none tends 
 more directly to harmonize the church. It combines the two 
 fundamental requisites for union, which are, 1, to take from no 
 church anything which it desires, as to its own mode of purifica- 
 tion ; and 2, to authorize each church to regard the purification 
 of others, though differing from its own, as valid. Who, that 
 loves the harmony of the church, who, that regards the feelings 
 and wishes of Christ, would not rejoice at an issue so auspicious ? 
 What can be more desirable than a union without sacrifice of 
 principle, or loss of any valued practice ? But this result secures 
 all this ; nay more, it would give to our Baptist brethren, not only 
 the full enjoyment of all they desire, without diminution or loss, 
 but add to it the sweet persuasion, that, on this point, all their 
 Christian brethren are also right, and can, in like manner, enjoy 
 the mode which they prefer. Thus all painful barriers to com- 
 munion will at once be taken away, the middle wall of partition 
 will fall, and all, in Christian love, will be united as one new 
 man. 
 
 In proportion then to the desirableness of this event, is the im- 
 portance of a radical investigation and correct interpretation of 
 
84 ROM. VI. 3, 4 : col. ii. 12. § 29. 
 
 Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12 ; for, next to the word Ba-TTTj^w, 
 these have been, and still are, the most serious obstacles to such a 
 result. As I have before stated, our Baptist brethren regard 
 these passages as an inspired exposition of the mode of baptism 
 — as proving, irresistibly, that the rite is designed, not merely to 
 represent purification from sin, but purification in a way signifi- 
 cant of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ, and of the 
 death, burial, and resurrection of the believer with him ; and al- 
 though this signification of the rite was not seen by men, when it 
 was first established, yet it was fully before the mind of God, and 
 was finally and fully disclosed by the Apostle Paul. In this they 
 are no doubt perfectly sincere, as they are also in the conviction 
 that no mode of purification, devoid of this striking significance, 
 is in accordance with the revealed will of God. Nor are they 
 without authority for interpreting these texts as referring to the 
 mode of the external rite. Indeed, the opinions of the Fathers, 
 whatever they may be worth, so far as I have examined, are en- 
 tirely with them. This explanation seems to have been adopted 
 at a very early period. But it was most fully developed by 
 Chrysostom ; and undoubtedly his authority and eloquence, more 
 than those of any other man, tended to give it currency in the 
 East, whilst the influence of Augustine was equally decisive in 
 the West. Besides, it is strongly sustained by the opinions of 
 many modern critics. Of these, it is enough to mention Luther, 
 Jaspis, Knapp, RosenmuUer, Doddridge, and Barnes — none of 
 them Baptists by profession. 
 
 Of course we need not wonder that our Baptist brethren feel 
 strong, and express themselves with confidence and even exultation, 
 in speaking of these passages. Says Dr. Carson (p. 144), " I value 
 the evidence of these passages so highly, that I look on them as 
 perfectly decisive. They contain God's own explanation of his 
 own ordinance. And in this, I call upon my unlearned brethren 
 to admire the divine M^isdom. They do not understand the origi- 
 nal, and the adoption of the words baptize and baptism can teach 
 them nothing. Translators, by adopting the Greek word, have 
 
§ 30. POINTS AT ISSUE PRINCIPLES OF REASONING. 85 
 
 contrived to hide the meaning from the unlearned. But the evi- 
 dence of the passages in question cannot be hid, and it is obvious 
 to the most unlearned. The Spirit of God has enabled them to 
 judge for themselves in this matter. Whilst the learned are 
 fighting about Bair'Ti^co, and certain Greek prepositions, let the un- 
 learned turn to Rom. vi. 4, and Col. ii. 12, etc." This may be 
 taken as a fair specimen of the strength of feeling that pervades 
 the whole body ; and if so, it is plain that all hopes of union are 
 fallacious, until the true interpretation of these passages is ascer- 
 tained. Most cordially, therefore, do I unite with Dr. Carson in 
 inviting, not the unlearned only, but all — learned and unlearned 
 — to turn to Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12. 
 
 § 30. Points at Issue — Principles of Reasoning. 
 
 Let us first present in full these remarkable and important pas- 
 sages of the word of God, and ihen endeavor to ascertain upon 
 what points the interpretation of them turjis. They are as fol- 
 low : ""H d/vosrrs, o'-n oVoj s/Sa-TrTicr^rjixsv z]g Xpitfrov 'Ir](J'ouv s]g tov 
 ^ava-rov duToO' sl^airrld&rnj.sv ; 2uv£-ra,(py]|xsv ouv durw (5'ia. tou (^aitr'id- 
 juoaroj Big rov ^avarov • I'va wrfTTS^ riyz^&'f\ X^kj'-toj sjc vsx^wv dio, Tiqg 
 6o^'f]g Tov itar^og oCrw xat rj}J^sTg sv '/.aivor-fin Z^^r^g •^sPiifOLrr^di^i^LSv. 
 Rom. vi. 3, 4. IxjvracpivTZg ocut^ sv tw /3a'7rTjV|xa-»* sv w xoa 
 tfuvrj^sV^rjrs 5w. Trig irldrst^g Trig svs^ysiag tov Gsov tov sys'iPavrog clurov 
 ix vtx^wv. Col. ii. 12. 
 
 Upon these passages two distinct questions may be raised. 
 
 I. Is the BAPTISM of the believer here spoken of external? 
 
 II. Are the burial and resurrection of the believer here 
 spoken of external? 
 
 I here assume the following positions or principles, the first of 
 which has been already proved, and the second of which is so ob- 
 viously true as to need no proof. 
 
 1. The philological question, as to the import of /5a'53'7i^w, 
 neither dejjcnds upon the interpretation of this passage, nor is af- 
 fected by it. Each stands upon its own ground, and must be de- 
 cided by its own evidence. And if it were proved that external 
 
86 POSITION TO BE PROVED SOURCES OF EVIDENCE. § 31. 
 
 baptism, burial, and resurrection are here referred to, it would 
 only prove, that, under a command to purify, they did in fact puri- 
 fy by immersion. And we must still translate the passage: "We 
 have been buried with him by purification into his death" — not by 
 " immersion'" into his death. For we have already shown that, as 
 a religious term, /Sa'zu'lj^w does not mean to immerse, but solely to 
 purify. In other words, we could prove immersion, &c., only by 
 the word bury, and not at all by the word baptize. 
 
 2. As the baptism is, so is the burial. That is, if the baptism 
 is external, so is the burial ; and if internal, so is the burial. 
 We are buried by the baptism spoken of, — Suvsracpyj^sv aurw ^lo, 
 Tou ^a'7r'TiV(xaro^, etc. Rom. vi. 4. And an external baptism can- 
 not produce an internal burial, nor can an internal baptism pro- 
 duce an external burial. 
 
 § 31. Position to be proved — Sources of Evidence. 
 
 We now proceed to consider the two questions above stated. 
 In answering them, three positions have been taken : 
 
 1. The baptism into Christ is external, and of course the burial 
 and resurrection. 
 
 2. The baptism is external, but the burial and resurrection are 
 internal. 
 
 3. The baptism, burial, resurrection, etc., are all internal, and 
 the passage does not refer to the external rite at all, nor derive 
 any of its language from it ; but the language would have been 
 just as it is, if the rite had been administered by sprinkling alone, 
 or even if there had been no external rite. 
 
 The third is the position which I intend to maintain ; and it is 
 obviously the direct antagonist of the first, — the usual position of 
 the Baptists, and also of the Fathers and others. The second is 
 an intermediate position, advocated by Wardlaw, Prof. Stuart, 
 and others, but, as I have indicated above, inconsistent with itself; 
 because, if the baptism is external, so must be the burial and the 
 resurrection. It is on this ground that Prof. Ripley reasons, and 
 I think conclusively, against Prof. Stuart. " This opinion " 
 
§ 32. LOGICAL EXIGENCIES OF ROM. VI. 3, 4. 87 
 
 (that the burial is internal), he says, " seems effectually opposed 
 by the circumstance that the burying is performed by haptism, an 
 external rite.'' p. 86. And all, who admit that the external rite 
 is here spoken of, must, it seems to me, be inevitably driven to 
 Prof. Ripley's ground. But, believing as I do, that the external 
 rite is not meant, and that the external interpretation of this pas- 
 sage is not only false, but injurious to the cause of truth and holi- 
 ness, I shall proceed to state the evidence which seems to me to 
 overthrow the first position, and to establish the last. My leading 
 arguments may be arranged under the four following heads : 
 
 1. Evidence from the logical exigencies of the passages, i. e. 
 from the course of the argument. 
 
 2. Evidence from the usus loquendi, as to spiritual death, burial, 
 resurrection, &c. 
 
 3. Evidence from the congruity of the interpretation, with the 
 general system of truth. 
 
 4. Evidence from the moral tendencies and effects of each in- 
 terpretation. 
 
 § 32. Argument from the Logical Exigencies of Rom. vi. 3, 4. 
 
 Let us then consider, 1, the course of the argument, and 2, the 
 logical exigencies of Rom. vi. 3, 4. We shall consider Col. ii. 
 12 by itself. The argument involves three points : 
 
 1. An objection stated in the form of a question, v. 1 : " What 
 then ? Shall we continue in sin that grace may abound ?" 
 Does not the doctrine of the free forgiveness of the greatest sins, 
 by the abounding grace of God through Christ, lead to this result ? 
 Or, to put it in the form of a positive objection, the doctrine of 
 the forgiveness of sins by free grace, tends to relax the power of 
 motives to holiness, and to encourage men to live in sin. 
 
 2. A reply, v. 2 : " God forbid. How shall we, who are dead 
 to sin, live any longer therein ?" Here Paul speaks in the name 
 of all who are really forgiven, and virtually asserts, that all, who 
 are in fact forgiven, are of course dead to sin, and cannot live 
 any longer therein. Implying, of necessity, that the system 
 
88 LOGICAL EXIGENCIES OF ROM. VI. 3, 4. § 32. 
 
 itself produces this effect on all who experience its true and ge- 
 nuine influence, and that this is necessary and universal. In 
 brief, the objection is : Does not the system encourage men to 
 sin ? The answer is : No, it makes them dead to sin, so that 
 they cannot live any longer in it. 
 
 3. A proof that the fact alleged is true — i. e. that the system 
 does tend to holiness, with immense power, and not to sin. vs. 
 3-11. 
 
 The question now at once arises. What is good and logical 
 proof of such a point, i. e. of the true and natural operation of a 
 moral system on the human mind ? In answering this, we shall 
 perceive at once the logical exigencies of the passage. 
 
 Can such proof then be found in external rites, solemn pro- 
 mises, and significant symbols ? Or must we look for it in a 
 clear statement of the internal, natural, and inevitable operation of 
 the system, as a system, on the mind ? As to the first, I need 
 only ask, what system, be it good or bad, is destitute of significant 
 rites and symbols, and of solemn confessions and promises? Pa- 
 pists and Protestants, Arminians, Calvinists, Unitarians, Camp- 
 bellites, Mormonites — all have them ; even the rite of immersion 
 is common to some of the worst with some of the best. But in 
 what case have these things given to any system a regenerating 
 or sanctifying power sufficient to uproot and destroy the desperate 
 depravity of the human heart ? Is it not a well known fact, that 
 the radical effects of all systems depend, not on external rites and 
 solemn promises, but on principles ? These are the internal and 
 germinating power of every system, and just so far as these are 
 adapted to act on the human mind, so is the system. And as a 
 general fact, those who depend most on promises, professions, and 
 external rites, as a means of subduing sin, have the least success. 
 
 In order, then, to make out a sound logical argument, it is 
 necessary that Paul should exhibit the internal operation on the 
 mind, of the doctrine of the forgiveness of sins by faith, and prove 
 that it does in fact cause all who come under its influence, to be 
 dead to sin. This, according to the internal mode of interpretation. 
 
§ 32. LOGICAL EXIGENCIES OF ROM. VI. 3, 4. 89 
 
 he does ; but, according to the external mode, he does not. The 
 one states the actual and inward effects of the forgiveness of sins 
 through faith. The other merely refers us to the influence of an 
 external rite. That this is so let us now proceed to establish. 
 The fundamental points in the interpretation are four : 
 
 1. 'EQaitTlcftiyiij.sv is to be interpreted, we have been imrifxd or 
 purged, in the legal or sacrificial sense, to denote the actual puri- 
 fication or purgation of the conscience from guilt by the Spirit. 
 This is the spiritual baptism of the Holy Ghost, and the designed 
 influence of the system on the mind of a convicted sinner. Of 
 this state of mind we have the following beautiful description 
 from the pen of Cowper : 
 
 Sweet was the time wlien first I felt 
 The Saviour's pardoning blood. 
 Applied to cleanse my soul from guilt. 
 And bring me home to God. 
 
 Thus, by this mode of translation, we pass at once, not to an 
 external rite, but to the actual influence of the system on the 
 mind. 
 
 2. 'E§a'7rr((j'c)7]fxcv ?.ig XpitTTov, is to be interpreted as indicating 
 no external rite, but an actual union with Christ, by this spiritual 
 purgation, or sense of the forgiveness of sins. This consciousness 
 of forgiving love awakens corresponding love, and produces an 
 entire union to Christ, and devotedness to him. " Whom not 
 having seen, ye love ; and in whom, though now ye see him not, 
 yet believing, ye rejoice with joy unspeakable and full of glory." 
 This is a spiritual baptism into Christ, involving a real and vital 
 union to him. 
 
 3. As the baptism into Christ is thus internal and spiritual, so 
 are the death, burial, and resurrection spoken of as produced by 
 it ; and these are to be regarded as the genuine and universal 
 eflects of the system of forgiveness by faith in Christ. 
 
 4. These changes involve a crucifixion to sin, a death to it, a 
 burial as it regards the old man, and a resurrection as it regards 
 
90 LOGICAL EXIGENCIES OF ROM. VI. 3, 4. § 32. 
 
 the new, analogous to the natural crucifixion, death, burial, and 
 resurrection of Christ. Thus the propositions of Paul may be 
 briefly reduced to this : By forgiveness of sins we are truly and 
 vitally united to Christ, and the inevitable effect of this union is to 
 exterminate, radically and entirely, our old sinful character, and 
 to produce a new one, pure and holy like his own. That these 
 propositions, if true, do make a logical argument, none can deny. 
 Thus, 
 
 Objection. The system of forgiveness of sins through faith in 
 Christ tends to embolden men in sin. 
 
 Reply. It does not ; for all who are truly forgiven are dead to 
 sin, and cannot live in it any longer. This is the natural and 
 necessary consequence of the system. 
 
 Proof. All who are forgiven are united by it to Christ, and it 
 is the inevitable consequence of this union to cause death unto 
 sin, and life unto God. 
 
 Now if the facts alleged are not only true, but obvious and well 
 known, then the argument is not only logical, but one of the high- 
 est power. But need I attempt to show that they are so ? Look 
 first at a spiritual baptism. See the convinced sinner, agonized 
 by the scorpion stings of a guilty conscience, and fears of coming 
 wrath, and earnestly inquiring. What shall T do ? Next look at 
 him baptized by the Holy Ghost, his conscience purged from guilt 
 by the blood of Christ, his sins forgiven, his soul redeemed — an 
 enemy, an alien, a rebel no more, but a child of God, a son, an 
 heir. In the midst of all his joy, what one thought above all 
 others will of necessity fill and overwhelm his mind ? It is this : 
 To the death of Christ I owe it all ; — Oh what had eternity been to 
 me, had it not been for the death of Christ f And now what must 
 be — what will be, the inevitable course of his soul ? Can he en- 
 dure the thought of living in sin any longer ? Speak, oh speak, 
 ye who have ever felt the overwhelming, the infinite, the irresisti- 
 ble power of a Saviour's love. Was not its natural, its necessary 
 tendency to produce an entire and vital union of the soul to 
 Christ, and a ceaseless and intense desire to be formed in his per- 
 
§ 32. LOGICAL EXIGENCIES OF ROM. VI. 3, 4. 91 
 
 feet image, and under the power of his love to make efforts to 
 exterminate every sin, of which not even the remotest idea had 
 been formed before ? Such an appeal to every possible principle 
 of gratitude, honor, generosity, love, hope, and fear, was never 
 combined in the universe before ; nor is such a combination pos- 
 sible, save to an infinite, incarnate, atoning God. And what do 
 facts say ? Need the oft repeated story of the Moravian brethren 
 and the poor Greenlanders be told again ? Need the experience 
 of ages past, and of every faithful and successful minister of the 
 present day, be rehearsed in proof? Nay, we all know the fact ; 
 it lies on the very surface of the system, as well as in its lowest 
 depths ; yea, I had almost said, it is its all in all. 
 
 What, therefore, the internal interpretation affirms, as it re- 
 gards the natural influence of the system of forgiveness by faith 
 in Christ, is an obvious and well known truth ; and it is true 
 concerning this system alone. The argument, then, is not only 
 perfectly logical, but one of the highest importance and power. 
 
 But what shall we say of the external interpretation ? How 
 does, or how can an external rite prove that the system of 
 forgiveness of sins through Christ produces death to sin ? The 
 reply of the Fathers would have been logical if true. They 
 held that Christ gave to the water a purging power ; it was holy 
 water ; there was a mysterious energy to destroy sin and to com- 
 municate the Holy Spirit. Hence they urged sinners to come to 
 the baptismal pool, very much as sinners are urged to come to 
 the inquirer's seat, or even to Christ. Alas for the religion of 
 Christ ! for centuries long and dark this was almost the only view 
 of the church ; and let those who attach such weight to patristic 
 interpretation, weigh well, before they give it much authority, 
 that malignant and damnable system — of which it was an essen- 
 tial part — BAPTISMAL REGENERATION ! What tongue can utter 
 the delusion, the spiritual despotism and the misery, which have 
 been poured from that full cup of wrath on a guilty world ! 
 This view, therefore, is not only to be rejected as false, but to 
 be abhorred as unutterably pernicious. 
 
92 LOGICAL EXIGENCIES OF ROM. VI. 3, 4. § 32. 
 
 We come then to all that remains — to the moral influence of the 
 solemnity of the baptismal promise and rite, as exhibited by 
 Prof. Chase, and others ; or, to the argument from its import, as 
 stated by Dr. Carson. According to the first view, those who 
 have been duly immersed are supposed to be thus addressed : 
 *' keflect how solemn your professions and promises in the hour 
 of baptism, and how significant the rite by which your duty was 
 shadowed forth, and your relations to Christ presented to the 
 mind. Did you not solenmly promise, when immersed, to die 
 unto sin and to live unto God ? And as you sank into a watery 
 grave, and came forth once more to the vital air, did you not 
 solemnly show forth your duty to die to sin, and rise to a new 
 and holy life, and also the death, burial, and resurrection of 
 Christ, by which your salvation was procured ?" 
 
 It is painful indeed even to seem to speak severely of what is 
 so sincerely and conscientiously said. But, in fidelity to God and 
 to man, I am constrained to ask : What does all this amount to, 
 unless it be to throw the main and peculiar reforming power of 
 the gospel, upon the influence to be exerted by the solemnities of 
 one external rite ? And is ?t come to this ? Is this all the 
 answer that even an apostle can give to an objection against the 
 gospel, so deep, so fundamental ? Are solemn promises and the 
 moral power of one rite, the vital and essential elements of the 
 reforming power of the gospel ? God forbid that 1 should deny 
 or diminish their usefulness in their place. But this is not their 
 place. We all know — universal experience has taught us — that 
 promises, however solemn, and rites however significant, have 
 no such reforming; power. And universal observation has shown, 
 that those who are baptized by the particular mode of immersion, 
 are not by it made better Christians than others. On this point 
 let Prof. Chase himself speak. " To you," he ^ays, " I have 
 intrusted the vindicating of my wisdom and goodness in the in- 
 stitution of baptism, by exemplifying in your lives its holy ten- 
 dency. Vain are all other vindications without this." Sermon 
 on the Design of Baptism, p. 28. But he says, p. 26, " Chris- 
 
§ 32. LOGICAL EXIGENCIES OF ROM. VI. 3, 4. 93 
 
 tians living in error on tliis subject, and attached, as men naturally 
 are, to what has been handed down from their fathers, have mark- 
 ed us ; and the men of the world have marked us. They have 
 observed our lives. And have we never heard the keen reproach : 
 What do ye more than others ? Ah ! my brethren, if it were 
 only a slander, we could bear it. But when he himself — our 
 Lord and Master — into whose death we have been baptized, casts 
 on us the grieved and piercing look, which he cast on Peter when 
 he had denied him, and asks : What do ye more than others ? we 
 can only go out and weep bitterly." Will my honored brother 
 allow me to suggest, that, if he will place infinitely less depend- 
 ence on the power of that external rite, in which he differs from 
 other Christians, and infinitely more dependence on those great 
 truths of the system, which he has in common with other Chris- 
 tians, and on which its reforming power is entirely based, he will 
 have reached the true and only secret of irresistibly moving mo- 
 ral appeals ? Till then, unless all the laws of the human mind 
 shall be changed, he will labor in vain to secure, by the aid of 
 any external rite, the end which he so sincerely and ardently 
 desires. 
 
 But Dr. Carson and others will say : That is not our view. 
 We hold that Paul uses the symbolical import of baptism, to 
 prove that believers are in fact dead to sin. To this I reply : It 
 does not help the case ; for any external rite, in such a course of 
 argument, cannot prove any such thing. How can the operation 
 of any system on the mind be proved, except by looking directly 
 at the mind itself, and considering the effect of the system on it ? 
 To test the argument, let us suppose an objector, and see what 
 Dr. Carson on his ground can reply. 
 
 Obj. I distrust this system of freely forgiving the greatest 
 sins through faith in Christ. It tends to encourafife men to 
 live in sin. 
 
 Dr. C. Not at all. Those who live under it are of course 
 dead to sin. 
 
 Obj. Pray how do you prove that ? 
 
94 LOGICAL EXIGENCIES OF ROM. VI. 3, 4. § 32. 
 
 Dr. C. Are you indeed so ignorant as not to know ? Why it 
 is clearly proved by the import of the baptismal rite. 
 
 Obj. Pray explain the nature of the proof ? 
 
 Dr. C. It exhibits those baptized in a figure, as dead with 
 Christ, and thus proves that they are so. See p. 143. 
 
 Obj. But how can an external exhibition of this sort prove 
 that Christians are dead to sin ? 
 
 Dr. C. Thus. This is not an accidental similitude, but a 
 divinely appointed emblem ; and, therefore, what it indicates 
 God affirms, and, therefore, it must be true. See p. 143. 
 
 Obj. So then it amounts to this ; it is so, because God de- 
 clares it to be so by this rite ? 
 
 Dr. C. Yes, this is its force. 
 
 Obj. Well then, if it were a case of mere authority, and not 
 of argument, it would be in point. But as a means of removing 
 my difficulties by argument, it is not in point. For I am look, 
 incr at a system of forgiveness of sins ; and I affirm that it appears 
 to me as if it would encourage, and not check sin. And you 
 undertook to reason with me, and yet you explain nothing, and 
 only silence me by mere authority. Can you not reason with me, 
 and show from the system itself, and from the laws of the mind, 
 that it does not so tend ? Lay aside, I beseech you, your ex- 
 ternal symbols, and look at the things themselves. Just show 
 me the necessary operation of the system on the mind of a for- 
 given sinner. 
 
 What can Dr. Carson do but comply with his request ? And 
 this brings him at once to the true and internal mode of inter- 
 pretation — to lay aside all external rites, and to bend all his en- 
 ergies to prove, by an appeal to the mind under the operation of 
 the system, that it has a reforming, and not a demoralizing 
 power. And this, as I have already shown, is precisely what 
 Paul does, without the least allusion to an external rite. 
 
 The obvious fact is, that all allusion to an external rite is here 
 out of place. It destroys the train of reasoning, perplexes and 
 confuses the mind, and causes a deep and painful feeling of the 
 
§ 33. ARGUMENT FROM THE USUS LOQUENDI. 95 
 
 entire absence of logical proof. Hence we need not wonder, that 
 logical minds have felt this. Mr. Barnes says openly, that there 
 is no reasoning here, but mere popular appeal ; and truly, accor- 
 ding to the external mode of interpretation, there is none. But 
 is this the place for popular appeal ? If ever an objection de- 
 served a thorough and logical reply, this is the one. Moreover, 
 up to this point we have had reasoning, cogent and condensed. 
 Why suppose a break in the chain here ? Above all other places, 
 this ought to be strictly logical, and unanswerably strong ; and 
 so indeed it is. There is no break ; there is no flaw ; there is 
 no relying on popular appeal ; there is no magnifying of the 
 power of promises, professions, and external rites. But there is 
 a close logical and unanswerable argument, from the necessary 
 operation of the gospel on the human mind. But this will be- 
 come still more evident, when we proceed to consider the requi- 
 sitions of the usus loquendi, as to spiritual crucifixion, death, 
 burial, etc. 
 
 § 33. Argument from the Usus Loquendi as to Spiritual Death, 
 Burial, etc. 
 
 We have great reason for gratitude, that the mode of speech, 
 used in these disputed passages, is not limited to them, but exists 
 in numerous other places, where it can be the subject of no fair 
 dispute. The usus loquendi in question, is not accidental, without 
 rules, and obscure, but based on principles clear, certain, and 
 consistent. It is found chiefly in the writings of Paul, but 
 it clearly occurs in those of Peter. Its principles are these : 
 
 1 . The spiritual crucifixion, towards which the forgiveness of 
 sins tends, as already shown, is a work involving great and in- 
 tense pain, and to induce a man to summon all his resolution and 
 energy to do it thoroughly, powerful motives are needed. 
 
 2. Such is the nature of man, that the most powerful motives, 
 by which he can be influenced, must be derived from the follow- 
 ing sources — (1) affecting examples of fortitude in suffering — 
 
96 ARGUMENT FROM THE USUS LOQUENDI. § 33. 
 
 (2) infinite blessings received through a suffering friend — (3) 
 the deep interest of that friend in our suffering for him. The 
 loss of fortitude to endure suffering for the general good, and a 
 love of indolence and ease, are the universal characteristics of 
 our depraved nature, and are the hardest of all to be overcome. 
 But if the idea can be fully thrown into the mind, and kept 
 daily before it, that our highest benefactor himself svffered with 
 infinite fortitude, and not only so, but that he thus suffered ybr us, 
 and not only so, that he infinitely and ardently desires to form the 
 same traits in us, and rejoices to see us, from love to him, crucify 
 the spirit of indolence, indulgence, and ease, and learn to rejoice 
 in a life of fortitude and suffering for the good of others, like his 
 own, then motives are concentrated and accumulated, the power 
 of which no man can resist. 
 
 3. It is the design of this mode of speech to combine all these 
 varied motives in one condensed appeal. The mode adopted is 
 this. Christ and the believer are represented as mutually inter- 
 ested in each other, and both as suffering for, and with, the other. 
 The part in each, that suffers, is called by the same name — the 
 flesh. But in the one case, it is external and material — the body 
 of Christ. In the other, it is internal and spiritual — the body of 
 sin, the old man. As each is spoken of as having a body, so each 
 body is represented as composed of members ; in the one case, 
 external and material as before, in the other case, internal and 
 spiritual, i. e. various and deep-rooted habits of sin, to be eradi- 
 cated by a process as painful as to cut off a right hand or foot, or 
 to pluck out a right eye. Thus we have the body of sin, and its 
 members, the old man and his members, which are the same as 
 the flesh, with its affections and lusts. 
 
 All these then are spoken of as to be crucified, eradicated, and 
 destroyed ; but as the work is excessively painful, and flesh and 
 blood shrink from its thorough execution, the example of Christ, 
 as enduring intense pain in his flesh, i. e. his body and members, 
 in the agonies of crucifixion for us, is presented as an example for 
 us to imitate, in our moral crucifixion for him. And we are ad- 
 
§ :^3. ARGUMENT FROM THE USUS LOQUENDI. 97 
 
 jured, in view of such an example, sucli love for us, and such 
 deep present interest in us, to arm ourselves with the same resolute 
 purpose to suffer for him, in crucifying and destroying the flesh. 
 This entire train of thought is fully set forth in 1 Pet. iv. 1 : " For- 
 asmuch then as Christ hath suffered for us in the flesh, arm your- 
 selves likewise with the same mind (i.e. summon all your energy 
 to suffer for him in the flesh) ; for he that hath suffered in the flesh 
 hath ceased from sin.^'' In other words,^e who hath crucified the 
 flesh, with the affections and lusts thereof, hath ceased from sin. 
 Only the internal sense is here possible ; for crucifying the flesh, 
 in this sense, does destroy sin ; bodily suffering does not. The 
 final result is then stated : " that he no longer should live the rest 
 of his time in the flesh (i.e. in the body, or in this world), to the 
 lusts of man, but to the will of God." Here then we have the 
 work to be done — to crucify the flesh, and the example of Christ 
 in suffering, the fact that it was for us that he suffered, and his 
 earnest desire that we should indicate the same fortitude in suffer- 
 ing for him, in order to become holy, and live in this world for 
 God, and not for man. Thus the appeal is thorough and com- 
 plete. And how great its power ! Christian, are you relaxing 
 your efforts to subdue sin 1 Do you say. It is too painful, I can- 
 not endure it ? But Oh, think again. Did Christ, your Saviour, 
 suffer so much that you may be forgiven, and be restored to holi- 
 ness, and does he earnestly desire it ? has lie fixed his heart upon 
 it ? is he deeply grieved at your negligence and sloth ? Will you 
 not then arouse yourself at once ? Think of the fortitude and 
 firmness with which he armed himself when he suffered for you ; 
 and arm yourself with the same mind to suffer for him, in becom- 
 ing holy, which he manifested in suffering that you might become 
 holy. 
 
 This mode of speech is carried out in other parts of Scripture, 
 in great minuteness of detail, but always on this principle, that 
 the sufferings of Christ are supposed to be fully before the mind, 
 as an object of daily meditation and imitation, and that whatever 
 took place naturally in connexion with the sufferings of Christ, 
 
 5 
 
98 
 
 ARGUMENT FROM THE USUS LOQUENDI. 
 
 § 
 
 has something to correspond with it spiritually, in its connexion 
 with the sufferings of believers. Thus : 
 
 CHRIST. 
 
 [ 1. Christ suffered naturally. 
 
 2. Christ in his flesh, i.e. body 
 natural. # . * 
 
 3. The members of Christ's 
 body were crucified. 
 
 4. Christ's body died entirely. 
 All natural life was total- 
 ly extinct. 
 
 5. Christ's natural death was 
 for sin. 
 
 6. Christ was buried natural- 
 ly, and became invisible in 
 the grave. 
 
 7. Christ rose naturally, and 
 appeared in new external 
 glory. 
 
 8. It was the mighty natural 
 power of God that raised 
 Christ. 
 
 9. Christ after his resurrec- 
 tion sat down in heavenly 
 places, bodily. 
 
 10. Christ dies naturally no 
 more ; death hath no more 
 dominion over him. 
 
 THE BELIEVER. 
 
 1. The believer suffers spiritu- 
 
 ally. 
 
 2. The believer in his flesh, i. 
 
 e. body of sin. 
 
 3. The members of the body 
 
 of sin are to be crucified. 
 
 4. The body of sin, the old 
 
 man, the flesh, is to be 
 entirely destroyed. 
 
 5. The believer's spiritual 
 
 death is to sin. 
 
 6. The believer is to be buried 
 
 spiritually and to become 
 invisible in his old charac- 
 ter. 
 
 7. The believer is to rise spi- 
 
 ritually and appear in a 
 new, holy, glorious, spiri- 
 tual character. 
 
 8. It is the mighty power of 
 
 God through faith that 
 raises the believer. 
 
 9. Believers sit down by faith 
 
 in heavenly places, after 
 their resurrection. 
 10. Believers die in sin no 
 more ; death spiritual hath 
 no more dominion over 
 them. 
 
 This process is sometimes stated antithetically, and in separate 
 
§ 33. ARGUMENT FROM THE USUS LOQUENDI. 
 
 99 
 
 parts, but it is also expressed in abbreviated forms of speech 
 formed by compounding the word denoting the action with rfuv, 
 e. g. (i\ji}.'T(a.(i'^u, tfurfraupow, tfuva'rro^v'/jtfxw, rfu^wo'Toiew, cr'uvs^si'pw, 
 tfu^xa^i^oj, etc. ; in all which cases is implied, I do or suffer that 
 spiritually, which Christ did or suffered naturally. So believers 
 are said to suffer, be crucified, die, be buried, be restored to life, 
 be raised, sit in heavenly places, and live for ever ivith Christ, 
 i. e. spiritually, as in his case naturally. 
 
 The reason of this is to be found in two f.icts. 
 
 1. Christ suffered, died, etc., naturally, in order to secure, not 
 only forgiveness, but also these very spiritual changes in us, and 
 it is the power of his example and love which in fact produces 
 them. As Christ, therefore, had all these things in view, when 
 he suffered, and as his sufferings rendered them sure, the spiritual 
 sufferings of believers are looked on as virtually included in the 
 natural sufferings of Christ : their death to sin in his/or it — their 
 spiritual burial, 'resurrection, and eternal life, in his natural burial, 
 resurrection, and eternal life. For surely one series did involve 
 and render certain the other ; and so when one came to pass 
 actually, the other did virtually. 
 
 2. The ardent love to Christ, which ever glowed in the breast 
 of Paul, led him to devise this mode of speech, as the best adapted 
 to express his unutterable affection for his Saviour, his all-absorb- 
 ing admiration of his character, and his infinite and intense desire 
 to be in all things one with him. Hence, as the sufferings of his 
 own adored Lord and Saviour passed every hour before his mind, 
 an intense desire arose, as it were, to make them his own, that is, 
 to identify himself with him, in absolute and perfect sympathy, 
 and, especially, to admire, and adore, and imitate his character 
 in that humiliation, and those sufferings which he underwent for 
 us. But before he could thus perfectly sympathize with Christ, 
 lie must of course renounce and crucify entirely all former am- 
 bitions, selfish and worldly modes of feeling ; for he could not 
 perfectly sympathize with such suffering love, till he was per- 
 fectly like him. Hence, the least remains of sin he regarded as 
 
100 AEGUMENT FROM THE TJSUS LOQUENDI. § 33. 
 
 excluding him from a perfect experimental and sympathetic 
 knowledge of the character of Christ ; and, by self-crucifixion, to 
 reach this point of a perfect experimental sympathy in th? abso- 
 lute perfection of a suffering Saviour, was the summit erf all his 
 desires. Hear him as he exclaims : " I count all things loss for 
 the excellency of the knowledge of Jesus Christ, my Lord, that I 
 may know him and the power of his resuri'ection, and the fellow- 
 ship of his sufferings, being made conformable unto his death." 
 And again : " I am crucified with Christ ; nevertlieless I live, yet 
 not I, but Christ liveth in me." And again : " God forbid that I 
 should glory, save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ, by whom 
 the world is crucified unto me, and I unto the world." — The vari- 
 ous forms of this mode of speech, in all its range, are not the mere 
 offspring of a luxuriant poetic imagination. Nor are they merely 
 the intellectual play of a fancy, that delights to trace analogies, 
 and amuse with alliterations. They are the sacred, elevated 
 spiritual language of unutterable love, the full power and beauty 
 of which no eye can see, or heart feel, that has never felt the 
 emotions from which it sprang. Without them, it may seem like 
 a mere heartless play of the imagination ; with them, it will at 
 once be recognised as the spontaneous, irresistible gushing forth 
 of the emotions of a heart, every impulse of which is towards 
 Christ, every desire of which is to be like him in all things, and one 
 with him in joys and sorrows, in life and death. And sad was 
 that day for the primitive church, when her heart ceased to beat 
 responsive to that of Paul, and darkness fell upon the deep spiri- 
 tual import of his sacred words. Then, in a fatal hour, the mys- 
 tery of iniquity began to work ; and soon, regeneration, by an 
 external form, and mystic, hidden influences, usurped the place of 
 the real crucifixion of the body of sin. 
 
 To illustrate these principles by quotations in detail, would ex- 
 ceed my limits. I shall only refer to the following passages of 
 Scripture, on which they are based, and which, in order to see 
 the whole truth on the subject, ought to be carefully examined. 
 
 In Eph. i. 19-23, and ii. 1-7, natural death, resurrection, 
 etc., in Christ, arc viewed analogically with death in sin, resur- 
 
§ 33. ARGUMENT FROM THE USUS LOQUENDI. 101 
 
 rection from sin, etc., in believers ; and the power of God, rais- 
 ing Christians by faith, is compared to his natural power in rais- 
 ing Christ, and is said to be analogical to it ; and the idea that be- 
 lievers are restored to life, rise and sit down spiritually in hea- 
 ven, as Christ did naturally, and that these changes in him 
 involved theirs, is expressed by tfuvs^woTrofrjij's, Cuv/j/Sips, Cuvsxot^jtrs. 
 In Phil. iii. 10-21, Paul desires to know fully, and in a spiri- 
 tual sense, — that which corresponds by analogy to these natural 
 changes in Christ, — 1, sufferings ; 2, death ; 3, resurrection ; 4, 
 experience of divine power ; and he shows how he aimed at the 
 spiritual perfection, involved in a perfect similitude to the natural 
 events — i. e. a perfect moral crucifixion, death, and resurrection) 
 — though he had not yet attained, and was not yet perfect. There 
 is not the least allusion to his own 7iatural resurrection, here. That 
 would take place of course, and without any effort on his part, 
 and the law of analogy totally forbids such an interpretation. In 
 Col. ii. 20, and iii. 1-4, we have, 1, death to the world with 
 Christ ; 2, a resurrection with Christ, and a sympathy with the 
 things where Christ is, producing an internal and hidden life in 
 him. Both of these changes in the believer are internal and spi- 
 ritual, and in Christ external. 
 
 See also Gal. vi. 14, 1 Pet. iv. 1, 2, Gal. ii. 19, 20, Col. iii. 
 5-14, Gal. V. 24. To these add Rom. vi. 1-13 and Col. ii. 
 11-13. Some of these have been referred to before ; and the 
 last two contain the passages in dispute ; but I refer to them now, 
 in order to present the Scripture evidence in a single group. 
 One thing more deserves our notice in this place. Two spiritual 
 states are sometimes used as analogical to the death of Christ, — 
 one death in sin, as* in Eph. ii. 1-7, and Col. ii. 11-13, the 
 other death to sin by moral crucifixion, as in Rom. vi. 1-13 and 
 Phil. iii. 10-21. But in no case is the fundamental law of the 
 analogy disregarded, i. e. that the states or changes in believers 
 are spiritual and internal, those of Christ natural and external. 
 In the sense of death in sin, moreover, they are never said to bo 
 lead with Christ ; for, to secure such a death in them, he did not 
 
102 ARGUMENT FROM THE USUS LOQUENDI. § 33. 
 
 aim ; but their death in sin is merely spoken of as calling for the 
 exercise of the mighty power of God to raise them up, just as ' 
 Christ's natural death demanded almighty natural power in order 
 to raise him up. 
 
 The inferences which 1 draw from this exhibition of the usus 
 loquendi, are these : 
 
 1. The general law of analogy demands the internal sense 
 throughout the whole of Rom. vi. 1-13 and Col. ii. 11-13. 
 Look at the preceding columns of parallel analogies. Of these 
 all but 6 and 7 are undeniably internal and spiritual on one side, 
 and external and natural on the other. By what law can 8 out 
 of 10, in a connected series, be internal and spiritual, and the 
 other two external and physical ? 
 
 2. Of these two, one — resurrection — is clearly proved, in the 
 analogous passages, to be used in a spiritual sense. See Eph. ii. 
 5, 6, and Col. iii. 1. Does not the usus loquendi then demand 
 that sense here ? 
 
 3. The resurrection in Col. ii. 11-13 is proved, by internal 
 evidence, to be spiritual ; for it is hy faith. Compare this now 
 with precisely the same idea in Eph. i. 18-20, and ii. 4-6, 
 Phil, iii.' 10, 11, Col. i. 3 ; and who can doubt? So in keeping 
 believers, God exercises his mighty power through faith, 1 Pet. i. 
 5 : 'Ev (5uva,a£j ©sou (ppoupoufxs'voug (5(a it\(irz(^g, sig tfwrTjpi'ocv. So in 
 Col. (f-o)jr]ysp6-r]T£ oia, Tr,g 'fficfrsug t% svspyslag tov Qsov denotes : " ye 
 were raised with him, by that faith, through which the power of 
 God exerts itself." Of course, if the resurrection is spiritual, so 
 is the burial. 
 
 4. In the phrase, ^«,va<rov avrov, in Rom. vi. 3, the law of ana- 
 logy requires avrov to be regarded as the genitive of similitude, 
 i. e. a death like his, or analogical to it. This use of the genitive 
 is exceedingly common; as in Jude 11, the way of Cain, the 
 error of Balaam, and the gainsaying of Core mean a way, error, 
 and gainsaying, like that of Cain, Balaam, and Core. So in Luke 
 xi. 29, the sign of Jonas, the prophet, is a sign like that of Jonas, 
 the prophet ; for in fact it was the burial of Christ three days and 
 
§ 34. CONGRUITY OF INTERPRETATION. 103 
 
 nights. But to put it beyond all doubt, in v. 5 it is expressed in 
 full — Tw o/xo»:,'j/xarj tov Savarov aOrou — " the likeness of his death," 
 i. e. a spiritual death, like his natural death. 
 
 5. Finally, the usus loquendi, as it regards both spiritual bap 
 tism, and spiritual crucifixion and death, authorizes and requires 
 us thus to interpret Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12. 
 
 Know ye not that so many of us, as have been purified into 
 Christ (i. e. truly united to Christ by the forgiveness of sins), have 
 been, by the forgiveness of sins, subjected to a spiritual death, like 
 his natural death ? Therefore as he was naturally buried, so are 
 we spiritually buried by that forgiveness of sins, which subjected 
 us to a spiritual death. That, like as Christ was raised up from 
 the dead by the glory of the Father, even so we also should walk 
 in newness of life. Rom. vi. 3, 4. As he was buried naturally, 
 so were ye spiritually buried in the forgiveness of your sins, in 
 which ye also rose spiritually as he did naturally, by that faith 
 through which is exerted the power of that God, who raised him 
 from the dead. Col. ii. 12. From the whole context, nothing can 
 be more certain than the spiritual sense of this passage. We 
 have, in v. 11, internal circumcision, and putting off the body of 
 the flesh ; in v. 12, a resurrection by ftiith ; in v. 13, an internal 
 death in sin and an int(,'rnal restoration to life. Who then can 
 liavc the least ground for calling the burial an external burial ? 
 So Rom. vi. 6. Paul expressly states that all that he has said of 
 the death of the believer is to be understood of the death of the 
 old man, and the destruction of the body of sin. But of course 
 the burial and resurrection are as the death. 
 
 § 34. Argument from the coiigruity of the interpretation with the 
 general system of truth. 
 
 The system of truth is but one. Hence all truth is consistent 
 with itself; and the more we investigate its minute relations, the 
 more arc we impressed with a conviction of its universal har- 
 mony. It is this perception of congruity in ten thousand minute 
 particulars, which produces what we call a sense or feeling of 
 
104 CONGRUITY OF INTERPRETATION. § 34. 
 
 verisimilitude. And as the operations of the mind are often so 
 rapid as to elude analysis, it gives rise to what may be called a pre- 
 sentiment of truth, even before investigation. Nor is this to be 
 despised. In any mind familiar with the great outlines of truth, 
 such rapid perceptions of the agreement or disagreement of a 
 given view with those great outlines, have a real and logical basis, 
 as investifration seldom foils to show. But Avhen investis^ation has 
 taken place, ihry can be stated and exhibited in their true rela- 
 tions. Some of the incongruities of the external system of inter- 
 pretation with the existing system of truth, I shall proceed to 
 state. 
 
 1. It is incongruous to take so much notice of one external in- 
 stitution, and to say nothing of the rest. 
 
 2. It is incongruous, if only one is taken, to notice one which 
 is less adapted to exert a great moral influence, and not to notice 
 one more adapted. 
 
 3. It is incongruous for Paul to make so much of any external 
 rite, and especially of this. 
 
 4. It is still more incongruous for Jesus Christ to do the same. 
 
 5. It is incongruous to establish one institution to com.memorate 
 the death of Christ, and then intrude on its province hj another 
 established for a difFerent end. 
 
 As has been stated, the external interpretation rests the reform- 
 ing power of the gospel, in a great degree, on the influence of 
 profession and promises connected with an external rite, or on its 
 influence in presenting truth to the mind. And are there no other 
 institutions that have the same external power ? Are there no 
 solemn vows around the Lord's table, and no intensely affecting 
 truths as to the death of Christ, inculcated by it ? Does the Sab- 
 bath declare nothing of a heavenly rest, nor bid man to die to the 
 world ? Has the ministry and the preached word no reforming 
 power ? Why say so much of the " holy tendency" of immer- 
 sion, and omit all these ? 
 
 But if any one of these was to be selected, why choose that one 
 which occurs but once in the life of a believer, and omit the oft- 
 
§ 34. CONGRUITY OF INTERPRETATION. 105 
 
 recurring influence of the Lord's Supper, and the solemn promises, 
 renewed with increasing fervency, from year to year, till death 
 closes the scene ? Why say so much of the weaker, and yet wholly 
 omit the stronger moral power ? Is there indeed in this one rite 
 a secret mystic influence, as the Fathers thought, operating with 
 immense power, breaking down and destroying all sin, actual and 
 original, at one blow ? If not, and if it stands solely on the ground 
 of moral influence, in impressing truth by symbols on the mind, 
 then the selection of this, and the omission of the Lord's supper 
 are truly incongruous. 
 
 But if we could expect such an effort to magnify an external 
 rite from any one, we should least of all expect it from Paul, who 
 regarded it, in comparison with the gospel, as of so little weight, 
 that he thanked God that he baptized none of the Corinthians, but 
 Crispus and Gains and the household of Stephanas, and affirmed 
 that God sent him not to baptize, but to preach the gospel, and who 
 gloried in nothing, save in the cross of Christ. Is it possible that 
 this same Paul has, in another place, attempted to refute a fun- 
 damental objection to this same gospel, by magnifying the influ- 
 ence of this same external rite ? What ! at one time ascribe to 
 it in some way such prodigious power to eradicate sin, and then 
 thank God that he did not administer it, and declare that he was 
 not sent to do it ! 
 
 Turn now to Christ, and hear him (Matt. xii. 7) rebuke the 
 rigid construers of external observances, by the reproof: "If ye 
 had known what that mcaneth, / icill have mercy and not sacrifice, 
 ye would not have condemned the guiltless." Again, when Peter 
 desired a more complete washing than the rest of the disciples 
 (John xiii. 10), hear him declare that, to indicate complete purifi- 
 cation, a washing of the feet is enough. And can we believe that 
 this same Jesus inspired his beloved Paul to declare that purifi- 
 cation cannot be acceptably signified in more than one way, and 
 that one, immersion of the whole body ? 
 
 Finally, the Lord's Supper was established to show forth the 
 Lord's atoning death, until he should come. Baptism indicates 
 
106 CONGRUITY OF INTERPRETATION. § 34. 
 
 the actual purgation of the heart and conscience from sin, when 
 the atonement is applied by the Holy Spirit. One indicates how 
 redemption was procured ; the other, how it is applied. One 
 commemorates atonement by Christ ; the other, regeneration by 
 the Holy Spirit. But the external interpretation makes baptism 
 a commemoration of three things — 1, the natural death and resur- 
 rection of Christ ; 2, the spiritual death and resurrection of the 
 believer, and 3, the natural resurrection of the believer. Carson, 
 p. 232. This is incongruous indeed. It is a manifest intrusion into 
 the province of the Lord's Supper, and that without the least reason ; 
 and it nearly loses in ideas of death and resurrection, all reference 
 to purity. In truth, it seems to immerse, and almost to bury out 
 of sight, the main idea of the rite, and to bring vividly before the 
 mind the fundamental ideas of another rite ; so much so, that, in 
 reading Prof. Chase's sermon on the design of baptism, one can 
 hardly avoid feeling that it is even more a discourse on the design 
 of the Lord's Supper, than a discourse on the design of that rite, 
 which was peculiarly ordained to show forth the work of the Holy 
 Ghost. Moreover, so far as it relates to purity, it is not the direc^ 
 fio-ure of the reality, but only the figure of a figure of the reality. 
 Purification is the reality. But immersion, the Baptists all affirm, 
 is the figure of death. But death is only a figure of the spiritual 
 destruction of the old man, in which purification actually consists. 
 But of purification it is no figure. 
 
 Such, then, are the inconsistencies and incongruities, which at- 
 tend all efforts to force an external sense on the baptism and burial 
 spoken of in these passages. But assign to them the internal and 
 spiritual sense, and all is consistent and clear. For it rests the 
 reforming power of the gospel on no external rite, and intrudes on 
 none. Nor does it at all disagree with the known character and 
 feelings of Christ or of Paul, but perfectly agrees with both ; lor 
 it directs us at once to the internal power of a spiritual purgation 
 of the soul, by the Holy Ghost, to unite to Christ, and thus destroy 
 the body of sin. And it presents distinctly and fully to the mind, 
 that in which Paul was wont most to glory — the cross of Christ — 
 
§ 35. MORAL TENDENCIES OF EACH INTERPRETATION. 107 
 
 and the energy of the gospel as the power of God to salvation, to 
 every one that believeth. 
 
 § 35. Argument from the moral tendencies and effects of 
 each mode of interpretation. 
 
 The principles of this argument are plain. They are these. 
 All truth, in its permanent influences, tends to holiness ; all error, 
 to sin. Therefore, if we can show, a priori^ that tendency to sin, in 
 any view, or prove by an appeal to facts that it has resulted in sin, 
 we are authorized to draw the conclusion, that the view is false. 
 Nevertheless, in this mode of reasoning, great care is needed not 
 to confound mere accidental sequences, with real and genuine 
 effects. To guard against this, note the following facts : 
 
 1. Self-crucifixion is, of all things, most painful. From all 
 'suffering, men naturally shrink -, but much more from the internal 
 
 pain and humiliation attendant on subdwing sin, than from any 
 other. Hence, to spare the old man, pilgrimages, fastings, flagella- 
 tions, bodily sufferings of all kinds, and even death itself, are will- 
 ingly endured. 
 
 2. Hence, in all ages a universal propensity to avoid the real 
 and internal crucifixion of the old man, by a reliance on exter- 
 nal forms of mysterious operation, or on an authorized ministr , 
 or a primitive church, or solemn ceremonies, rather than on the 
 simple and sure crucifixion of tlie flesh, with the affections and 
 lusts thereof. 
 
 3. The most powerful system, by ^^hich tlie devil ever cor- 
 rupted and destroyed the gospel of Christ, even the great mystery 
 of iniquity, has its foundation on a skilful use of this tendency of 
 the human heart. It is a system expressly designed to exclude 
 spiritual crucifixion, that is, to exclude real holiness, and to re- 
 place it by a religion of ceremonies and forms. 
 
 4. The external interpretation tends naturally to that very 
 view, for its obvious sense is to make external baptism the great 
 destroyer of sin, and the great defence of the church against it. 
 
 5. By the Fathers, and even by Augustine, it was practically 
 
108 MORAL TENDENCIES OF EACH INTERPRETATION. § 35- 
 
 so regarded. He did not, indeed, exclude the Holy Spirit, but re- 
 garded the water, when consecrated, as involving, in some myste- 
 rious way, his presence ; and though he threw out cautions against 
 the grosser forms of baptismal regeneration, yet the practical 
 influence of his urgent appeals to sinners, to come to the baptismal 
 pool, and wash away all their sins, or bury the old man, etc. etc., 
 could not possibly have but one result. Baptism became practi- 
 cally the great thing ; and on it, eternal life or eternal death seem- 
 ed to hang. And in all this mournful process, the external inter- 
 pretation of these texts is almost the great moving poAver of the 
 whole. It is not wise to give to any one cause exclusive power 
 in forming the papal system, but I hesitate not to say, that no one 
 cause did more than hapiismal regeneration ; and no one cause did 
 more to develope and mature that doctrine, than the external inter- 
 pretation of these texts. Of this fact, pages of proof are at hand, 
 and, if any one desires, ,can easily be produced. But, to those 
 who have examined enough to judge, no proof, I think, can be 
 needed. 
 
 6. No modern corrections or limitations of the patristic inter- 
 pretation of these passages have been able to neutralize or de- 
 stroy the injurious tendency of the external view ; nor can it be 
 done, so long as the great fact remains, that in an argument 
 designed unanswerably to prove the sanctifying power of the 
 gospel, an external rite comes where the internal energy of truth 
 and the Holy Spirit ought to come. The external rite, if admitted 
 at all with such a view, wrests and distorts the great outlines 
 of the whole picture. It is not the glorious gospel that fills the 
 mind, as held by all real Christians, but the peculiar solemnity, 
 fitness, and significance of the form of immersion, or else the 
 solemn promises made when immersed. And on a mind adverse 
 to self-crucifixion, and tending to self-complacency and censori- 
 ousness, what must be the moral effect of such appeals as these : 
 " Yes, my brethren, we have been truly baptized. We have 
 been immersed, and now the world looks to us for a proof of its 
 sanctifying power?" Let it be granted that these things are not 
 
§ 35. MORAL TENDENCIES OF EACH INTERPRETATION. l09 
 
 always said in pride, but often in deep and humble sincerity. 
 But what art can extract the venom they are adapted to infuse, or 
 prevent the inevitable tendency to magnify certain forms, and to 
 freeze the heart of Christian love to all who are without the range 
 of those forms? In multitudes of noble spirits, I rejoice to record 
 it, the last effect is not produced. But it is to be ascribed to other 
 and powerful counteracting causes, whilst, where no such counter- 
 acting causes exist, the venom rages unchecked ; and we are not 
 obscurely told that it is at least uncertain, whether a person un- 
 immersed, can ever enter the kingdom of God ; and immersion, as 
 of old, practically usurps the place of regeneration. Among the 
 evangelical Baptists this, indeed, is not true ; other causes pre- 
 vent. But there have long been others who equal or even exceed 
 them in their zeal for immersion, and tbe Mormonites are now to 
 be added to the list. If there is a real sanctifying power in this 
 view, why are such multitudes of men, in all parts of our land, 
 so zealous for it, who yet give no signs of crucifying the flesh 
 with the affections and lusts thereof? The fact cannot be denied. 
 Why is it so ? Is it not because it presents, as a cross io he taken 
 up, a mere external rite, and promises, in some way, by the 
 mysterious operation of a form, to enable them to escape the self- 
 crucifixion they so much dread ? And can holy men — men of 
 prayer — sustain that very mode of interpretation on which it all 
 rests, and not, whether they will or no, confirm such men in their 
 views ? Let all who are truly holy cut loose from this view, and 
 soon the unholy will sink it by their own moral gravitation, and 
 it will disappear. 
 
 On the other hand, the internal interpretation directs the atten- 
 tion of Christians directly to the interior, central, and fundamental 
 work of self-crucifixion, under the influence of forgiving love, and 
 declares that true and real forgiveness of sins, always indicates itself 
 by the destruction of the flesh with the affections and lusts thereof, 
 and stimulates and aids Christians, in the highest degree, by 
 example, and gratitude, and sympathy between the believer and 
 Christ. 
 
110 OBJECTION FROM AUTHORITY CONSIDERED. § 36. 
 
 It is no small loss then to the Christian world, not only to lose 
 the whole power of these passages for good, but even to have them 
 perverted for evil, or else so obscured in the smoke of controversy, 
 that they produce almost no effect, except to awaken in the mind 
 an anxiety to know whether they do mean immersion or not. Let 
 them be redeemed from all perversion and controversy, and let 
 them utter, in clear tones, the full heart of Paul, and they will 
 arouse the whole church to the earnest pursuit of eminent holiness 
 as with a trumpet call. 
 
 § 36. Ohjection from autlioriiy considered. 
 
 The influence of authority, with many minds, is great ; and I 
 should not be surprised if some should try to urge the argumentum 
 ad verecundiani, in view of opinions so numerous and respectable 
 against this result. 
 
 To this with all deference I would make the following reply : 
 
 1 . In a radical discussion of the question, ^re the majority right ? 
 an appeal to names is totally illogical. This is manifestly a case 
 of the kind. 
 
 2. In some cases, numbers are a presumptive argument of 
 error, and not of truth; i. e. in the case of old errors, long es- 
 tablished, and never thoroughly reinvestigated. 
 
 3. That this is a case of the kind, one striking proof will clear- 
 ly show ; — that every argument for the external sense, which I 
 have found after extended search, has rested entirely on an obvi- 
 ous, yet fundamental petitio pi'incipii. I refer to the fact that in 
 every case it has been assumed, without proof, or even an effort at 
 proof, that the baptism spoken of is external, — just as if there 
 were no such idea, in the word of God, as internal baptism, or as 
 if it were of no importance, and, therefore, it is always d priori 
 probable that whenever the word is used, the external rite is 
 meant, — so probable that it may always be assumed without proof. 
 Look now at the works of Prof. Chase, Dr. Carson, and Prof. Rip- 
 ley, so often alluded to, and you find not even an effort to prove, 
 
§ 36. OBJECTION FROM AUTHORITY CONSIDERED. Ill 
 
 philologically, that the baptism is external. It is always assumed. 
 And yet, as all know, this is a fundamental point in the whole 
 discussion. 
 
 What then are the facts as they present themselves in the New 
 Testament ? They are these : 
 
 1. There is a baptism, infinitely more important than the ex- 
 ternal baptism, and of which the external baptism is but a sign. 
 
 2. In the spiritual baptism, a believer is actually purged from 
 sin and guilt, by the Holy Ghost. In the external, the forgiveness 
 of sins is openly announced to him, on the assumption that he 
 has repented and believes, as he professes. 
 
 3. The person baptized is regarded as calling on the name of 
 the Lord for forgiveness, and the baptizer as announcing his for- 
 giveness in the name of the Lord. Acts xxii. 16. 
 
 4. In the case of internal baptism, there is no such external use 
 of the name of God, but a real forgiveness resulting in actual union 
 to Christ. Hence, 
 
 5. The form — (Bci^rl'^^Ed&a.i zlg ovo^a. Xpitfroij — is adapted to ex- 
 press the external baptism ; jSwn'Ti^scf&ai sis XpjtfTov, to express 
 the internal baptism, that actually unites to Christ. 
 
 6. To this view, all facts accord. For in every instance where 
 ovo^JM is used, there is internal evidence in the passage to prove 
 that external baptism is meant. Matt, xxviii. 19, Acts ii. 38, 
 Acts viii. 16, Acts x. 48, Acts xix. 5, Acts xxii. 16, 1 Cor. 
 i. 13, 15. 
 
 But in every case where ovofxa is omitted, and slg precedes 
 XpitfTov or tfwixa, denoting the spiritual body of Christ, there is in- 
 ternal evidence that external baptism is not meant, and that inter- 
 nal is meant. Rom. vi. 3, 1 Cor. xii. 13, Gal. iii. 27. In case 
 of the first two, we have exhibited the evidence of the internal 
 sense in the preceding argument, and in § 11. In Gal. iii. 27, 
 the sense of Puithig on Christ is fixed by Rom. xiii. 14, as de- 
 noting, not an external profession of religion, but a real assump- 
 tion of a holy character, like that of Christ. See also Eph. iv. 24 
 and Col. iii. 10, 12, for a perfect demonstration of this sense. Be- 
 
112 OBJECTION FROM AUTHORITY CONSIDERED. § 36. 
 
 sides, it is utterly unworthy of Paul to say : " As many of you, 
 as have been externally baptized into Christ, have made a profes- 
 sion of religion," but entirely worthy of him to say : " As many 
 as have been baptized into Christ spiritually, have really been 
 by it changed into his image ;" and this is true of all who have 
 been spiritually baptized, but of all who have been externally 
 baptized it is not true ; yet Paul affirms it of all ; otfoj s^aicrl^ritiav 
 £/V Xpirfrov. 
 
 In 1 Cor. X. 2, s]g tov MwutfT^v s^airr'KfavTo denotes neither 
 Christian baptism nor external baptism ; but a throwing back the 
 name of the antitype upon the type, from a regard to similar ef- 
 fects. Believers, by spiritual baptism, are delivered from Satan 
 and united to Christ. The children of Israel were delivered from 
 Pharaoh, and really united to Moses, as a leader and saviour, by 
 the cloud and the sea. There was here no external prof ession, hut 
 a real union to Moses as a leader, effected by a separation and de- 
 liverance from Pharaoh. In all this, Moses was a type of Christ, 
 and, therefore, the name of the antitype is thrown back upon this 
 transaction, and it is called a baptism into Moses, but not into the 
 name of Moses. On the same principle, i. e. regard to effects, 
 spiritual baptism is called the antitype of the salvation of Noah 
 and his family in the ark. For as one actually saved Noah in 
 the ark, so the other actually saves believers in Christ. 
 
 If these facts are so, where is the a priori improbability that 
 internal baptism is meant in Rom. vi. 3, which all advocates of 
 the external sense have assumed ? The fact is that the improba- 
 bility, from the very form of language, is altogether against ex- 
 ternal baptism ; and all, who assume it, not only do so without 
 proof, but without the possibility of proof, and against clear proof 
 to the contrary. 
 
 No more striking instance can be given of the influence of a 
 technical and external use of a word, without any reference to 
 its spiritual signification, to turn away the mind from the true 
 sense of the word of God. For in Eph. iv. 5, 6, as well as in 
 Rom. vi. 3, and 1 Cor. kxii. 13, and Gal. iii. 27, the same cause has 
 
§36. OBJECTION FROM AUTHORITY CONSIDERED. 113 
 
 entirely hid the true and spiritual sense, and put an external rite 
 Avhere the whole context demands the work of the Holy Spirit. 
 One Lord, — even Jesus Christ who made atonement, — one faith, 
 or glorious system of truth to be believed, and one regeneration, 
 — the glorious result of the application of that truth by the Holy 
 Spirit ! How incongruous to place an external rite in such rela- 
 tions, and, especially, so to exalt external baptism, and to say 
 nothing of the Lord's Supper! 
 
 Through the same external, formal habit of mind, the beauti- 
 ful and spiritual sense of Eph. v. 26 has been lost, though the 
 washing is expressly declared to be by the word of God — iv 
 l^jxaTj ; and the spritual sense of ut^wp is overlooked, though God 
 has expressly used it as a symbol of truth. " I will sprinkle clean 
 water on you, and ye shall be clean." 
 
 So also the spiritual sense of Titus iii. 5 is drowned beneath 
 the flood of external baptismal regeneration, though the language 
 is exactly adapted to express the beginning and progress of spirit- 
 ual life, or regeneration and sanctification — Xourpov 'vraXi^ysvsa'ia^ 
 denoting the first, and uvaxuivixtig 'jtviCiJ.arog a.j'iov the progressive 
 sanctification, caused by abundant effusions of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 Finally, not only is it true that external baptism is not meant 
 in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, but it is also true tliat there is 
 no reason to think that any part of the language is taken from 
 that rite. For, 
 
 1. Even had there been no external rite, but internal baptism 
 only, the force of the analogy would have called for the use of 
 burial in both of these passages. In speaking of the spiritual 
 crucifixion, death, and resurrection of the believer, how could 
 Paul help inserting burial ? 
 
 2. The real origin of the language is obvious. Christ was 
 hiried in fact, as well as crucified, and the same series of events, 
 that furnished to Paul all the rest of his figures, would naturally 
 furnish this. 
 
 3. The ocnius and habits of Paul's mind demand this oriirin : 
 
114 APOSTOLIC PRACTICE CONSIDERED. § 37. 
 
 for it was not external baptism that was daily before his mind, 
 but the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. 
 
 4. The supposed connexion or similitude between the word 
 /SotTrri^oj and burial, does not exist; for /Sa-TTTi'^w means to purify, 
 and, therefore, would not suggest the idea of burial. Such, then, 
 is the proof of the position originally stated, that the haplism, 
 burial, resurrection, &c., spoken of in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 
 12, are all internal, and that the passage does not refer to the 
 external rite at all, nor derive any of its language from it; but 
 that the language would have been just as it is, if the rite had 
 been administered by sprinkling alone, or even if there had been 
 no external rite whatever. 
 
 § 37. Apostolic jjractice considered. 
 
 After what has been said, but few words are needed on this 
 point. It is plain, 
 
 1. That to us it is of very little consequence, what their pra(;- 
 tice was ; for the command was only to purify, and God attaches 
 no importance to any one mode rather than another. 
 
 2. It is not possible decisively to prove the mode used by the 
 apostles ; for if going to rivers, going down to the water and up 
 from it, &c., create a presumption in favor of immersion, so does 
 the baptism of three thousand on the day of Pentecost, in a city 
 where water was scarce, and of the jailor in a prison, create a 
 presumption in favor of sprinkling. 
 
 And if a possibility of immersion can be shown in the latter 
 cases, so can a possibility of sprinkling or pouring, be shown in 
 the former. 
 
 3. The command being to purify, and the facts being as stated, 
 the decided probability is that either sprinkling, pouring, or immer- 
 sion, was allowed, and Christian liberty was everywhere enjoyed. 
 
 4. A tendency to formalism led to a misinterpretation of Paul 
 in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12; and this gave the ascendency to 
 immersion, which increased, as before stated, till it became 
 
§ 38. FINAL RESULT. 115 
 
 general, though it was not insisted on as absolutely essential on 
 philological grounds. 
 
 5. Various causes, even in the Roman Catholic church, at 
 length produced a relaxation of this excessive rigor of practice. 
 And most Protestants, at the Reformation, took the same ground. 
 But, 
 
 6. A mistake in philology, afler the Reformation, introduced a 
 practice stricter and more severe than even that of the Fathers, 
 and which reprobates Christian liberty on this subject, as a cor- 
 ruption of the word of God ; because various causes induced even 
 the Roman Catholic church to relax a little of the excessive 
 strictness of antiquity. I know that all that comes from the 
 Roman Catholic church is a priori suspicious. But bad as that 
 church is, no one can deny that there is some truth there. The 
 view I have advanced, I hold, not on her authority, but on its own 
 merits. And I will not reject or deny a truth, even if it is found 
 in a corrupt church. 
 
 § 38. Final Result. 
 
 It appears, then, that the whole subject turns on three points : 
 1, the import of /Sa-TrTJ^w ; 2, the significance of the rite ; 3, early 
 practice. On each, the argument in favor of immersion rests on 
 a petitio principii. 1. It is assumed as improbable that ^a'm'^w 
 can mean purify, without respect to mode, if it also means, in 
 other cases, immerse. The falsehood of this assumption has been 
 shown, the existence of an opposite probability proved, and the 
 meaning p>urify clearly established by facts. 2. The improbabi- 
 lity of internal baptism in Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, has 
 been assumed, and external baptism has also been assumed with- 
 out proof. It has been shown that the external sense, and not the 
 internal sense, is improbable, and that against the external sense 
 there is decisive proof. It has also been assumed that the practice 
 of immersion by the Fathers and others, is proof of their philology, 
 and that, therefore, they must have regarded the command to baptize 
 as a command to immerse. The falsehood of this assumption has 
 
116 FINAL RESULT. § 38. 
 
 also been clearly shown. The result of the whole is, that as to 
 the mode of purification we may enjoy Christian liberty ; and that 
 immeasurable evils attend the operation of those principles, by 
 which many are now endeavoring to bring the church upon ex- 
 clusive ground. There is no objection to immersion, merely as 
 one mode of purification, to all who desire it. But to immersion 
 as the divinely ordained and only mode, there are objections, deep 
 and radical. We cannot produce unity by sanctioning a false 
 principle ; our Baptist brethren can, by coming to the ground of 
 Christian liberty. The conclusion, then, to which I would kindly, 
 humbly, affectionately, yet decidedly come is this: "Stand fast 
 in the liberty wherewith Christ hath made us free, and be not 
 entangled again with the yoke of bondage." 
 
 The argument is now closed. I intend only to add a i'ew 
 words of a practical kind, as it relates to the translation of the 
 Bible, the unity of the church, and Christian communion. 
 
 NOTE. 
 
 The reception of Dr. Carson's first reply to me, induced me to change 
 the purpose announced at the close of the preceding chapter, and again to 
 reinvestigate the whole subject. The result is contained in the next part. 
 
PART III. 
 
 FIRST REPLY TO DR. CARSON. 
 
 CHAPTER I. 
 
 God in his providence seems to be exciting unusual attention to 
 the long continued debate as it regards the mode of Baptism. On 
 this subject, two opposing systems are in conflict. One based on 
 the performance of a specific act — i. e. immersion — the other on 
 indicating an effect, i. e. purification. Each of these systems 
 tends to results peculiar to itself. By these results the true na- 
 ture of each system will be evolved, and in consequence of them, 
 its soundness will be tested. Such is God's mode of bringing 
 false systems to a close. 
 
 § 39. Present Position of the Baptists. 
 
 The system based on the performance of a specific act, is 
 evolved. Let us look at its results, as seen in the present position 
 of its advocates. 
 
 The denomination of Evangelical Baptists is large, universally 
 diflfused, and very active. It is in all the movements of the 
 church, a constantly operating force. Of course the position they 
 assume as it regards other denominations, is a matter of no small 
 consequence. They have it in their power universally to affect 
 the tranquillity of Zion. We shall therefore briefly consider the 
 position which they do in fact assume. This can easily be 
 inferred by carrying out logically the following principles, — that 
 baptism is essential to church membership, and that the command 
 
118 PRESENT POSITION OF THE BAPTISTS. §39. 
 
 to baptize is a command to immerse. From these principles, they 
 infer, 
 
 1. That all other denominations are unbaptized, because unim- 
 mersed, and that they are therefore in a state of disobedience to 
 God. 
 
 2. That other denominations cannot be recognised and treated 
 by them as members of the Church of Christ, because unbaptized, 
 and are therefore to be excluded on this ground, from communion 
 with them at the table of the Lord. 
 
 3. That other denominations are guilty of mistranslating the 
 word of God, or at least of covering up its sense on the subject of 
 baptism. 
 
 4. That to the Baptist denomination is assigned the great work 
 of giving a correct translation of the Bible to the world, and of re- 
 storing the Gospel to its primitive purity and simplicity. 
 
 These positions are not with them mere points of theory, but 
 have been of late, with increasing vigor and decision, reduced to 
 practice. They have also assumed a tone of uncommon decision 
 and boldness in announcing their principles, as if their correct- 
 ness were beyond all question. Nay, too often have many of 
 them spoken with contempt and ridicule, not to say insolence, of 
 those who hold the opposite opinions, as if they were holding on 
 to exploded errors, in face of all the learning of the modern world, 
 and even against their own better knowledge. 
 
 Prof Eaton, of Hamilton Baptist Institute, in his speech before 
 the Baptist Bible Society, at their anniversary of 1840, says. 
 Report p. 74 — " The translation" of the Baptist Missionaries " is 
 so undeniably correct," that its incorrectness could not be " pre- 
 tended," without committing the objector's character for scholar- 
 ship and candor. " Who are they, sir," said he, " who cavil 
 about the plain meaning of the original word whose translation is 
 so offensive ? Are they the Persons, and the Campbells, and the 
 Greenfields, and such like ? No, sir. But the cavillers are men 
 who, whatever may be their standing in other respects, have no 
 reputation as linguists and philologists to lose. There really can 
 
§ 39. PRESENT POSITION OF THE BAPTISTS. 119 
 
 be no rational doubt in the mind of any sound and candid Greek 
 scholar, about the evident meaning of the word in question. I 
 venture to say, at the risk of the little reputation for Greek 
 scholarship which I possess, tliat there are no words of plainer 
 import in the Bible. The profane tampering which has been 
 applied to these words," &c. &c. See Hall's Baptist Errors, p. 
 39, for the preceding quotation — a very able work. 
 
 Mr. Hinton, after an argument on the import of the word 
 ^arn'ri^o), and a professed history of the origin and progress of 
 pouring and sprinkling, says, p. 196, 197, — " May I respect- 
 fully ask the psedobaptist who reads this volume (Episcopalian, 
 Presbyterian, Congregationalist, or Methodist), 1. Whether he 
 has not been kepi in ignorance of these facts ? 2. Whether those 
 clergy who withhold these facts from their flocks, do not take 
 upon themselves an undue and dangerous responsibility ? 3. 
 Whether he will have independence enough to take every 
 adequate means to ascertain if these statements can be denied ? 
 And finally, if they cannot be gainsayed, whether he will dare to 
 remain unbaptized, and therefore in a state of disobedience to the 
 Kincr of kings?" 
 
 On the 28th of April, 1840, The Baptist American and Foreign 
 Bible Society passed the following resolution : " Resolved, that 
 by the fact that the nations of the earth must now look to the Baptist 
 denomination alone for faithful translations of the )vord of God, a 
 responsibility is imposed upon them, demanding for its full dis- 
 charge an unwonted degree of union, of devotion, and of strenu- 
 ous, persevering effort throughout the entire body." Moved by 
 Prof. Eaton, seconded by Rev. H. Malcom. 
 
 In their Report, this Society stigmatize the translations of all 
 other denominations, as " versions in which the real meaning of 
 words ... is purposely kept out of sight, so that Baptists 
 cannot circulate faithful versions . . . unless they print them at 
 their own expense." They assert, p. 45, " It is known that the 
 British and Foreign Bible Society, and the American Bible 
 Society, have virtually combined to obscure at least a part of 
 
120 INFERENCES FROM THE OPPOSITE SYSTEM. § 40. 
 
 the divine revelation, and that these Societies continue to circulate 
 versions of the Bible, unfaithful at least so far as the subject of 
 Baptism is concerned." — Hall on Baptism, pp. 27, 28. 
 
 Again, Prof. Eaton says. Report, p. 79, " Never, sir, was there 
 a chord struck that vibrated simultaneously through so many 
 Baptist hearts from one extremity of the land to the other, as 
 when it was announced that the heathen world must look to them 
 ALONE /or an unveiled view of the glories of the Gospel of Christ." 
 " A deep conviction seized the minds of almost the whole body, 
 that they were divinely and peculiarly set for the defence and 
 dissemination of the Gospel as delivered to man by its heavenly 
 author. A new zeal in their Master's cause, and unwonted 
 kindlings of fraternal love glowed in their hearts ; and an at- 
 tracting and concentrating movement, reaching to the utmost 
 extremity of the mass, began and has been going on and in- 
 creasing in power ever since." — Hall's Baptist Errors, p. 38. 
 
 More facts of a similar kind can be found in a correspondence 
 between the Rev. J. Davis Gotch, of the Baptist denomination, 
 and the Rev. T. Milner, a Congregational minister, in which the 
 latter declines attending the celebration of the first half-century 
 since the commencement of Baptist missions, and assigns as a 
 reason the ground taken by the Baptists towards other denomina- 
 tions. See London Congregational Magazine, and the New 
 England Puritan for August 18, 1842. 
 
 Indeed, their whole body has been rallied by a universal 
 impulse, as if on the eve of a general victory, and as if their 
 triumph was destined to usher in the glories of the millennial day. 
 
 § 40. Inferences from the opposite system. 
 
 The logical consequences of the other system remain now to 
 be stated. These can easily be inferred from its fundamental 
 position, THAT there is no command to dip or immerse in the 
 New Testament, but solely a command to purify, in the name 
 of the Trinity ; and that each denomination may select for 
 
§ 40. INFERENCES FROM THE OPPOSITE SYSTEM. 121 
 
 itself what it deems the most decorous and appropriate mode of 
 fulfilling this command. This, if kindly received, is a conciliating 
 view, and tends to unity ; for it gives Christian liberty to all. So 
 I presented it, and I hoped for it a kind and a candid reception. 
 My hopes have been disappointed. Efforts have been made to 
 suppress it, by affected contempt of the view, and its advocate. 
 Or it has been rejected with scorn, attended by uncalled for per- 
 sonal attacks upon the intellectual and religious character of its 
 advocate. This I deeply regret, for I wrote with feelings of 
 great kindness towards the Baptist denomination, and strong 
 desires for unity in the love of Christ. But perhaps I ought not 
 to be surprised. If the view I advocate is correct, close com- 
 munion must die, and all the charges of Baptists against other 
 denominations must be retracted, and their course as to the 
 translation of the Bible, and the Bible Society, retraced. At all 
 events, union and conciliation they reject ; they still continue 
 their attack. Hence logic must have its course. 
 
 Of this system, the logical consequences are clear, and no Chris- 
 tian charity calls for their suppression. I announce them soberly, 
 calmly, and yet decidedly, and as in the presence of a holy God. 
 
 1. That other denominations are not unbaptized, though unim- 
 mersed, because they arc purified, 
 
 2. They are not substituting human forms in place of a com- 
 mandment of God — nor are they in rebellion against God. 
 
 3. There is no good reason to exclude them from the table of 
 the Lord — nor 
 
 4. Are they guilty of mistranslating or obscuring the word of 
 God. 
 
 5. The Baptists mistranslate the word of God — not only con- 
 cealing its meaning, but putting in place of it, one entirely foreign 
 to the mind of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 6. They are not divinely set apart to the great work of giving 
 correct translations of the Bible to the heathen world ; on the other 
 hand, they are the only denomination who are combined systema 
 tically to mistranslate it, and to hide its meaning from the world. 
 
122 TRANSLATION OF THP: BIBLE. § 41. 
 
 7. They are guilty of teaching for doctrines, the commandments 
 of men, and because others will not comply with uncommanded 
 external forms, of charging them with rebellion against God, and 
 of excluding them from the table of the Lord. 
 
 8. For the sake of this same uncommanded form, they have di- 
 vided the Bible Society, and do still divide and agitate the church 
 of God. 
 
 If the position on which this system rests is true, it needs no 
 labored argument to show that these things are so. They are but 
 its logical and necessary consequences. As such, I announce 
 them. 
 
 In one point, however, this system does not reverse the position 
 of our Baptist brethren. It does not pronounce them unbaptized, 
 nor exclude them from the table of the Lord. It admits that im- 
 mersion is baptism, not indeed because it is immersion, but solely 
 because it is one mode of purification. 
 
 § 41. Translatio7i of the Bihle. 
 
 Upon the question of translation, however, a few words may 
 be needed. I remark, then, that to transfer words from one lan- 
 guage to another, is not to mistranslate, but simply to take a word 
 from the stores of one language, and by it to enrich those of an- 
 other. The sense of such a word is to be fixed, as is the sense of 
 all other words, by the association of ideas. For example, to dip, 
 is of Saxon origin, and belongs to the native stores of our language. 
 On the other hand, the word immergo did not belong to our lan- 
 guage, but to the Latin. At length, from a form of this verb, the 
 word immerse was transferred to our language, and immersio was 
 transferred as immersion. In like manner, baptize and baptism 
 have been transferred from the Greek. But these are not all. 
 Characterize, scandalize, dec, have been transferred in the same 
 way. Thus, also, the words, the Christ, the Messiah, and Jesus, 
 have been transferred from the Hebrew and the Greek, meaning 
 the anointed one, and the Saviour. Shall a clamor, then, be 
 
§ 42. COMMANDMENTS OF MEN. 123 
 
 raised, because immersion, Messiah, Clirist, and Jesus, have not 
 been translated, like that which is made about not translating bap- 
 tize ? And shall we translate scandalize and characterize ? 
 
 But it may be said that in the case of these words the associa- 
 tion of ideas has done its work, and that their meaning is so fixed 
 that they have become a part of our language. True, and what 
 hinders the same result as to haptism and baptize ? Not the fact 
 that they are transferred words, but that a controversy exists as 
 to their meaning in the original, so that the natural operation of 
 the association of ideas has been, and still is, interrupted. Let 
 the controversy cease, let all think correctly as to the import of 
 the Greek words, and baptize and baptism will soon become as 
 significant as catechize and catechism, or exorcise and exorcism, 
 or even as immerse and immersion. 
 
 All will know that baptism means a sacred purification or 
 CLEANSING, and that baptize means to purify or cleanse. And 
 there are certainly advantages in not translating, but in trans- 
 ferring this word. Sacred purification will then have, in all 
 languages, one and the same sacred name. This, like Jesus, and 
 Christ, will be known and read of all men, in all languages, as 
 denoting either an external sacred purification, or that one sacred 
 purification of the Spirit which it symbolizes, and which is by the 
 apostle associated with one Lord and one faith. 
 
 But if the word (Saitri^u is to be translated and not transferred, 
 it should by all means be translated purify and not immerse. 
 To translate it immerse, is but to perpetuate error and sectarian- 
 ism, by a false translation of the word of God. 
 
 § 42. Commandments of Men. 
 
 As to teaching for doctrines the commandments of men, this is 
 plain, that if God has commanded only the genus, no one has a 
 right to limit the command to the species. If he says, go preach, 
 no one has a right to limit us to one specific mode of going. If 
 he says, cultivate the earth, no one has a right to limit us ex- 
 
124 STATE OF THE CONTROVERSY. § 43. 
 
 clusively to digging, or to ploughing. So if he commands " jjwrz/?/," 
 no one has a right to limit us to immersion, as the only mode. It 
 is not indeed wrong to immerse, but to insist on this as the only 
 mode, is wrong. And to yield to such a demand, is to sanction a 
 groundless usurpation over the consciences of men. This is our 
 answer to the inquiry of our Baptist brethren, " Why not join us 
 and be on the safe side, and thus unite the church ? for you all 
 admit that immersion is baptism." We reply, we might not in 
 certain cases object to immersion, if it involved no concession of 
 principle ; but if it does, we will not give place by subjection, no, 
 not for an hour, that the truth of the gospel may continue with us. 
 All who come to spy out our liberty which we have in Christ 
 Jesus, that they may bring us into bondage, we shall fearlessly 
 resist, relying on the Spirit of God for his guidance and aid. 
 Such are the opposing systems and their consequences. 
 
 § 43. State of the Controversy. Br. Carson's Reply. 
 
 It is an entire anomaly in the history of controversy, that con- 
 sequences so vast should depend upon the meaning of a single 
 word, yet such is the fact. All of these consequences hinge upon 
 the meaning of the single word fSairri^cjj. And as to this word, 
 the whole question turns upon the simple inquiry : was there a 
 transition in ^u'^n'^w from its primary sense to immerse, to the 
 secondary sense to purify, irrespective of mode, and is that the 
 sense in the command ? 
 
 Now the possibility of such a transition cannot be denied. For, 
 as I have shown, nothing is more common than such changes. 
 And of the fact that the change did take place, I have alleged 
 what seems to me unanswerable proof. 
 
 If, therefore, my premises cannot be overthrown, the conclu- 
 sions above stated of necessity follow. I had supposed that a 
 position so serious in its bearings, would be at once and severely 
 scrutinized in this country, but it has not been. A short time 
 since, however, I heard, on coming from the west to the east, that 
 
§ 43. STATE OF THE CONTROVERSY. 125 
 
 Dr. Carson, of Edinburgh, had published a reply, and hoped 
 soon to see it republished in this country. At last, I read in the 
 Christian Watchman, a notice taken from an English Baptist 
 magazine, stating in substance that Dr. Carson, the celebrated 
 Greek scholar, had totally annihilated my arguments. That they 
 were both dead and buried, and that no one dared to appear in 
 their defence. The editor of the Watchman also remarked that 
 this might be necessary in England, and that Dr. Carson, with his 
 vast stores of learning, was just the man to do it, but that in this 
 country it was needless. My pieces are very harmless here, and 
 would not probably have been noticed but for the respectability of 
 the periodical in which they were published. As, therefore, our 
 American Baptists are, in the judgment of this editor of one of 
 their leading papers, so superior in intellectual acumen to those of 
 Great Britain, I concluded that Dr. Carson's reply would not be 
 republished in this country at all, and after vain efforts to obtain 
 a copy of it, I at last was obliged to send for it across the Atlantic. 
 I did not see it till I had finished the whole preceding discussion, 
 and hence I lost the advantage of certain lessons in rhetoric and 
 logic, which, as I discover. Dr. Carson prepared expressly for my 
 benefit. 
 
 I am glad, however, to receive it even at this late hour. Dr. 
 Carson writes evidently under great excitement, but puts forth all 
 his energy to defend his positions. And in reviewing his reply we 
 shall be called to try the solidity of the foundation on which my 
 whole argument rests. Dr. Carson, if any one, can destroy them, 
 and if he fails, his cause is lost. 
 
 As Dr. Carson's reply has not been republished here, I must 
 needs give some account of it to my readers. It is a pamphlet of 
 74 pages, devoted entirely to the examination of my first two 
 numbers. These, it seems, were republished in England under 
 a mistaken impression that the discussion was completed, and Dr. 
 Carson answered them as if they were a full exhibition of all the evi- 
 dence I had to produce. Hence, he answered an incomplete 
 work ; and yet his reply considers all the imnciplcs involved in a 
 
126 DR. Carson's rhetoric, its influence. § 44. 
 
 thorough discussion of the subject. It may be viewed in two 
 lights — as a specimen of Rhetoric, or of logic. — In both lights I 
 shall consider it. 
 
 Much of it has nothing to do with logic at all. All this I shall 
 put under the head of rhetoric. And, as this is the most striking 
 part of the performance, and that in which its greatest power lies, 
 I think it well to bestow on it particular attention. 
 
 § 44. Dr. Carson's Rhetoric. Its Influence. 
 
 In this part of the work, Dr. Carson makes a very strong ap- 
 peal for sympathy to his readers, in the unparalleled trials in 
 which my work has involved him. 
 
 His own view of the case is this. 
 
 His gentle spirit shrinks from the use of severe language towards 
 others, even in exposing their errors, but an imperious sense of 
 duty urges him on to discharge the painful task. " I have no 
 wish," he says, "to be severe," p. 437. " It is painful for me 
 to use the knife so freely ; but I must, for the sake of the Chris- 
 tian public, find out the disease under which my patient labors. 
 It is better that one delinquent should suffer, than that a multitude 
 should be drawn into error by his example," p. 435. " It grieves 
 me to be obliged to write in this manner, but I cannot avoid it," 
 p. 469. The passages, to utter which, caused such grief to his 
 gentle spirit, are these : 
 
 " Ignorant persons, in reading Mr. Beecher's work, will think 
 that he is a deep philosopher, and that he is a profound philologist. 
 But the smallest degree of perspicacity will enable any one to see 
 that his philosophy is very shallow sophistry. No man ought 
 with impunity to be allowed to trifle so egregiously with the dis- 
 ciples of Christ, and with the awful commandments of the eternal 
 Jehovah, p. 437." " Is it not astonishing that gentlemen in emi- 
 nent situations, will risk the character of their understanding, by 
 pouring forth such crudities ?" p. 435. " The author's philoso- 
 phy is false, absurdly and extravagantly false. He gives us eight 
 
5> 44. DR. Carson's rhetoric, its influence. 127 
 
 lines of pliilosophy. I will give a premium to any one who will 
 produce me a greater quantity of absurdity in the same compass, 
 under the appearance of vvisdom. The only merit this nonsense 
 can claim, is, that it is original nonsense," p. 469. To be com- 
 pelled to utter such language as this, concerning a Christian bro- 
 ther, must indeed be painful to a tender spirit, like Dr. Carson, 
 especially, as it is so liable to be misunderstood and ascribed to an 
 entirely different frame of mind — for it is not obviously and upon 
 the surface, the language of grief. And if it is so painful to be 
 compelled to utter a liltle of such language, what must be the suf- 
 fering involved in the necessity of using it almost from the begin- 
 ning to the end of a pamphlet of 74 pages ; especially as he i^ 
 called to the painful duty of charging upon a Christian brother, 
 or upon his opinions, not only folly, stupidity, and nonsense, but 
 also dishonesty, obstinacy, fanaticism, heresy, infidelhy, and 
 blasphemy '? Indeed, there are cases in which, according to his 
 own account, his trials exceed in severity those of the patriarch 
 .Tob, and even exhaust his patience, great as it is. " It requires," 
 says he, " more than tlie patience of Job, to be able to mention 
 such an argument without expressing strong feelings," p. 434. 
 "Am I to war eternally against nonsense?" p. 438. "I am 
 weary with replying to childish trifling," p. 463. " It is sick- 
 ening to be obliged to notice such arguments," p. 464. 
 
 His trials, indeed, must be severe, especially when we consider 
 how far he is removed from all such intellectual and moral 
 defects. I had spoken of a certain mode of reasoning, and said, 
 " It assumes a violent improbability of the meaning in question, 
 and resorts to all manner of shifts to prove the possibility of im- 
 mersion, as though that were all that the case required." This 
 is quite too much for Dr. Carson. " What shall I say of this ?" 
 lie exclaims. " Is it calumny, or is it want of perspicacity ? 
 Assume f I assume nothing, Mr. President Beecher, but self- 
 evident truth. My reasoning does not rest at all on assump- 
 tions. . . . All manner of shifts ! I repel the charge with indigna- 
 tion. I never used a slufi in all the controversy I ever wrote," 
 
128 DR. CARSON'S RHETORIC. ITS INFLUENCE. ^ '^^' 
 
 p. 454. Again : " I have no theory to support. I never use 
 theories in ascertaining the truths and the ordinances of Christ. 
 I interpret by the laws of language," p. 445. " I never press an 
 argument a hair's breadth further than it can go." " Fear of the 
 result never in a single instance prevented me from admitting a 
 sound argument. I do not fear the result ; for truth is my object 
 wherever it may lie," p. 432. On all these points, Dr. Carson is 
 no doubt a competent and an impartial judge ; and if so, it must 
 indeed be an intolerable trial to be called on to deal with one who 
 is " the dupe of his own sophistry, and that a sophistry childishly 
 weak," p. 466, and whose mode of reasoning he cannot dignify 
 with any other designation than that of perverse cavilling, p. 459. 
 In reasoning with whom, he is called on to put obstinacy to the 
 blush, and to overwhelm it with confusion, p. 456. Who proves 
 himself ignorant of one of the fundamental laws of controversy, 
 p. 451. Who gives the lie to the inspired narrator, p. 450. 
 Whose artifice is just that of the Socinians, and a dishonest and 
 uncandid way of escaping, p. 449. Whose rhetoric is Gothic 
 rhetoric, p. 448. Who has not a soul for philological discussion, 
 p. 441. AVho is emboldened by his excessive deficiency in per- 
 spicuity,* p. 441. Who uses resources of which no sound philo- 
 loo-ist would think of availing himself, p. 440. Whose argument 
 proceeds on an amazing v/ant of discrimination, p. 439. Whose 
 cavilling is unworthy of a candid mind and a sound understand- 
 ing, p. 438 ; than whose arguments nothing can be more ex- 
 travagantly idle, p. 438. Whose arguments and objections are 
 mere trifling, p. 436. In whose ideas there is great confusion, 
 p. 430. Whose reasoning is to him a perfect astonishment, so 
 that lie has greater difficulty in conceiving how it can have 
 force on any mind, tlian he has in refuting it, p. 435 ; and, in 
 fine, whose argument manifests such a want of discrimination 
 and such a confusion of things which differ, that the mind on which 
 it has force, must be essentially deficient in those powers that 
 qualify for the discussion of critical questions, p. 434. 
 
 * In the last ediiion " perspicacity." 
 
§ 44. DK. Carson's rhetoric, its influence. 129 
 
 Dr. Carson, indeed, being excessively good-natured, p. 453, 
 has undertaken to give me lessons in rh»toric and logic, pp. 434 
 and 471, and is encouraged to think that he has forced one of 
 his distinctions into my head, p. 471.* But shortly after he seems 
 discouraged again, and exclaims : " Will!'\ (i. e. shall) I never be 
 able to force this into the mind of my antagonist ? If he would 
 allow himself to perceive this distinction he would be delivered 
 from much false reasoning. I will then try to make the thing 
 plain to every child," p. 471. Surely this is exemplary patience 
 and condescension. 
 
 Dr. Carson also seems to be distressed with a strange appre- 
 hension that, after all, my reasonings will affect the public 
 mind extensively. They are indeed folly to him, but all do not 
 possess his " perspicacity." " Careless readers will imagine 
 that there is wonderful acuteness in Mr. Beecher's observa- 
 tions," p. 455. " Half learned people will think that this ac- 
 count of the phenomenon is an unparalleled effort of philosophy, 
 and thousands will rely on it who cannot pretjend to fathom it," 
 p. 469. It must be painful to Dr. Carson to have so low a view 
 of the capacities of other minds in comparison with his own, for 
 he says, that " the smallest degree of perspicacity will enable 
 any one to see that his (my) philosophy is very shallow sophis- 
 try," p. 437. 
 
 However, out of compassion for the ignorant and those that 
 are out of the way, he engages manfully in the work of exposing 
 my sophistry, and, according to his own account, with very 
 gratifying results. His grief at the necessity of dissecting me 
 has passed away, and in rapture he exclaims : " I have now 
 examined Mr. Beecher's arguments, and there is not a shadow of 
 evidence that the word baptism signifies purification. I have met 
 everything that has a shadow even of plausibility, and completely 
 dissected my antagonist. Am I not now entitled to send purify to 
 
 * " Made it clear to my opponent," in 2d Edition, 
 t" Shall," 2d Edition. 
 
 6* 
 
130 DR. carson's rhetoric, its influence. §^,44. 
 
 the museum as a lusus naturse, to be placed by the side of its 
 brother pop ?'' P. 475. • 
 
 It would be cruel indeed to deny lo Dr. Carson this small con- 
 solation as a reward for all his sufferings and labors. But I greatly 
 fear that new conflicts await him before he can wear undisturbed 
 the victor's crown. Such is Dr. Carson's rhetoric. 
 
 Let us now briefly consider its influence. On a certain class 
 of minds it will produce revulsion and disgust. Can that be a 
 true cause, they will exclaim, that needs to be defended by such 
 weapons ? Are these the teachings of the Spirit of God ? Is 
 this the meekness and gentleness of Christ ? I will do the honor 
 to my Baptist Brethren to believe that there are many, very many 
 of them, who can feel no sympathy in such things. Their own 
 spirit, their own style of writing, forbids the idea. Nothing of 
 this kind have I ever seen in the writings of Professor Ripley, or 
 Professor Chase, or President Sears. I do not, indeed, agree with 
 them in opinion. But in any discussion with them I should con- 
 fidently expect to find in them the honor and magnanimity of 
 gentlemen, and the meekness and gentleness of Christ ; and I re- 
 joice to believe that those of the Baptists who sympathize with 
 such men as these, are not few, and that their influence is not 
 small ; and until they disavow it, I will do them the honor to be- 
 lieve that their deep dislike of the spirit of Dr. Carson's reply is 
 the real reason that it was not republished in this country. When 
 I hear them state that they approve the spirit of that work I will 
 believe that they do, but never till then. 
 
 But the moral effects of Dr. Carson's reply, and of all his 
 writings that I have seen, on another class of minds, I do fear. 
 Novices, easily puffed up with pride, and predisposed to arrogant 
 assumptions of superior intellectual power, and to contempt of 
 their opponents, and all violent and heated partisans, will find 
 Dr. Carson's rhetoric exactly to their taste. To use it requires 
 no meekness, no forbearance, no humility, no aid of the Holy 
 Spirit. The carnal mind wlW readily receive Dr. Carson's seed 
 and bring forth an abundant crop. And partisan Christians, in 
 
§ 44. DR. Carson's rhetoric, its influence. 13l 
 
 whom the flesh is strong and the spirit weak, will come under its 
 full power. Nor is this power small. It may be seen at this 
 hour, in the style of a certain class of Baptist writers, in all parts 
 of our land. There is in them a lofty tone, and a spirit of con- 
 temptuous invective, and of fierce attack, that distinctly character- 
 ize the Carsonian scliool ; and even in Christian newspapers we 
 read of scalping their antagonists. This to be sure is an im- 
 provement on Dr. Carson's favorite figure of dissection, but the 
 father of such a school must not be surprised if his cliildren excel 
 him : for the field opened is boundless ; and such contemptuous 
 expressions as " baby sprinklers," &c., will soon not be deemed 
 sufficiently spirited and energetic to meet the exigencies of the 
 case, and each new combatant v.'ill resoi't to the boundless stores of 
 the Carsonian school. 
 
 If this were the first instance in which Dr. Carson had dealt 
 in this style of rhetoric, I should regard it less ; but it is not. It 
 pervades all his writings that I have seen. Soys an English 
 author (Andrew Carmichael), "If they have not wholly and to 
 a point embraced his views, they are paradoxical, foolish, ar- 
 rogant, untaught, impious, wicked, silly, presumptuous Protestant 
 theologians ; supporters of a very unholy cause ; crude theorists, 
 Pharisees and blasphemers. Yet, the person who can heap these 
 epithets upon others, can venture to make this acknowledgment 
 of himself : — My itmy is to endeavor to find what the Scriptures say, 
 and to this I make every human dogma to bend. I will not 
 allow philosophy herself to prate on the things of God." If Dr. 
 Carson should plead that he was writing against Unitarianism, or 
 loose views of inspiration, as his justification, I have only to ask : 
 When was not the cloak of zeal for God and the truth, thrown 
 over a bad spirit ? This is no way to check error. It will con- 
 firm twenty Unitarians or sceptics, where it convinces one. For 
 they will ask : Can that be the truth that breeds such a spirit ? 
 
 Nor can a» y denomination long tolerate such a spirit in its 
 writers with impunity. It may assume the form of zeal for God 
 and the truth. It may delude multitudes with the idea that they 
 
132 DR. Carson's logic, preliminary remarks. § 45. 
 
 are especially designated by God for the great work of defendin' 
 the gospel. But this fire is not from the altar of God. It i 
 strange fire. And let those who offer it take heed, lest fire go out 
 from the Lord and devour them. And if the leaders of the 
 Baptist denomination in this country, have any regard to their 
 own moral soundness, let them stand between the living and the 
 dead, and pray that the plague may be stayed ; and everywhere 
 meet a spirit so unholy, with stern and emphatic rebuke. It may 
 be of great use in rallying a party for a partisan warfare. It 
 may for a time augment sectarian power. But it is no prepara- 
 tion for the coming of the Son of God. It is no preparation for 
 the baptism of the Holy Ghost and of fire. 
 
 § 45. Dr. CarsoTi's Logic. Preliminary Remarks. 
 
 We have considered Dr. Carson's rhetoric. Let us now look 
 at his logic. In doing this I meet with two embarrassments : 1. 
 His work has not been republished in this country. Hence 1 
 shall direct my attention at present mainly to principles, as my 
 readers can better comprehend these than details.* 2. I have 
 already virtually answered nearly all of it in my last two num. 
 bers, though not having seen the work itself, I did not aim to 
 answer it, and hence the application of the various parts of my 
 discussion to Dr. Carson's positions may need to be pointed out. 
 But as I have not room to attempt this, I shall trust to the intel- 
 ligence of my readers to do that v/ork. 
 
 All of Dr. Carson's reply may be considered as relating either 
 1, To principles; or, 2, To fundamental arguments; or, 3, To 
 subordinate points ; the truth or fiilsehood of which is of some 
 consequence, but not essential to the main question. Dr. Carson 
 seems to labor very hard to accumulate upon me errors of all sorts, 
 for the purpose, it would seem, of destroying my reputation as a 
 scholar, by repeated charges of fully, stupidity, nonsense, &c. Often 
 the errors charged are upon minute points, not at all essential in 
 
 * It has since been republished. 
 
§ 46. DR. carson's system, and canons. 133 
 
 the decision of the main question. But they give him a fine op- 
 portunity of setting forth my amazing want of perspicacity. 
 Such charges of error are a kind of logical mosquitoes. They 
 have a sting ; they irritate ; but they have no fatal power ; and 
 are so numerous and minute that there is no time to pursue them, 
 and little is really gained by their destruction. In the refutation 
 of such charges, I shall not waste the time of my readers. If the 
 main points are decided in my favor, they will die a natural 
 death. I shall therefore first consider the question of principle, 
 and then look at the fundamental arguments in the case. 
 
 Careful reasoners are wont to examine principles, and state 
 definitions clearly at the outset. Dr. Carson ought to have done 
 this. I stated clearly and fully my principles at the outset, 
 presented definitely the point to be proved, and the nature of the 
 proof required. Does Dr. Carson carefully examine this part of 
 my argument ? Not at all. He merely alludes to it for the sake 
 of saying that he has no objection to much of it, and that I bor- 
 rowed all the truth of it from him ; and then passes on to his 
 attack upon my examples. Does he anywhere fairly and fully 
 meet and discuss my principles ? Not at all. Let me then begin 
 by considering both his principles and mine. 
 
 § 46. Br. Carson^ s System, and Canons. 
 
 I will therefore now endeavor to do what Dr. Carson has no- 
 where done, to collect the scattered fragments of his system, and 
 to present them in one view ; for, above all things, it is essential 
 to have clear views of the points actually in debate. Dr. Car- 
 son's system then involves four parts. 
 
 1. To establish clearly that (Sa-Ttri^iA) actually has the sense 
 immerse in many instances. 2. To assume a canon of proof as 
 to a secondary sense. 3. To provide a set of principles for 
 testing all alleged secondary senses, to see if they cannot possi- 
 bly be reduced to the primary sense. 4. If it is possible, then to 
 overrule all probabilities of a secondary sense, by what he calls the 
 
134 DR. CARSON's system, Ai\D CANONS. § 46. 
 
 testimony of the word /Sa';rTi'^w, of which the primary sense has 
 been established. With the resuhs of this process he is remark- 
 ably well satisfied. In his preface, he says, " My dissertation on 
 the import of the word f^aTrri^c^ I submit with confidence to the 
 truly learned. If I have not settled that controversy, there is not 
 truth in axioms.^'' Dr. Carson has chosen to disregard the advice 
 of an ancient king : " Let not him that girdeth on his harness, 
 boast himself as he that putteth it off." Whether he has done 
 wisely in so doing, the result will show. Let us examine his 
 process a little more in detail. 
 
 In establishing the first point. Dr. Carson has laid out much 
 needless labor. No one, so far as I know, ever denied it. Yet 
 Dr. Carson, in his work on baptism, has accumulated passage on 
 passage, as if the whole world denied that (BairTi^o ever means to 
 immerse, till he thinks his position impregnable. Having thus 
 firmly established what no one denies. Dr. Carson next lays down 
 his canon as to proving a secondary sense. P. 72. " I will here 
 reduce my observations on this point to the form of a canon. 
 When a thing is proved by sufficient evidence, no objection from 
 difficulties can be admitted as decisive, except they involve an 
 impossibility." The " thing" in this case is of course the primary 
 sense of jSaTrj^w. For though the canon is general in form, yet 
 it is made for a specific case. But the canon in its general form 
 looks plausible, because it includes unlike cases, and is true of 
 some, and not of others. If a particular fact is proved by sufficient 
 evidence, as for example, the being of a God, or the inspiration of 
 the Scriptures, we are not to reject that fad on account of dif- 
 ficulties. So if the meaning of a word in a particular passage is 
 fairly proved, we are not to reject it in that passage, because of 
 difficulties. But proof of the meaning of a word in one passage, 
 is not of course proof of its meaning in another ; because the 
 meanings of all words are liable to change. Now, in all places 
 where the meaning immerse has been proved by Dr. Carson to 
 belong to (Saii^ri^u, I do not deny that it so belongs. But this 
 is not proof of its meaning in all other cases. Its meaning in 
 
§ 46. DR. cakson's system, and canons. 135 
 
 each case must be decided for itself. Dr. Carson's canon then, 
 so far as it applies to the case in hand, is merely this : where one 
 meaning of a word hps been proved in certain cases, no dif- 
 ficulties can be admitted as decisive against retaining it in other 
 cases, unless they involve an impossibility. Flere it is then, in all 
 its nakedness. He attempts, indeed, to put this alongside of the 
 impropriety of rejecting proof of the being of a God, and the in- 
 spiration of the Scriptures on the ground of difficulties. But who 
 cannot see that the cases are totally unlike ? If we admit a new 
 meaning to the word (3uitTi<^(jj, on the ground of difficulties, we 
 do not reject the old meaning in cases where it has been proved 
 to exist ; we merely prove that in other cases another meaning co- 
 exists with it. If, on the ground of difficulties, we reject the 
 being of a God, or the inspiration of Scriptures, we reject the 
 identical thing which we had before proved true. Dr. Carson's 
 canon then is in brief this : " We cannot admit a secondary sense 
 of ^a-TrTi'^w, unless we can prove that the primary sense is im- 
 possible," Carson, p. 493, and it is in this form that he every- 
 where reduces it to practice. Dr. Carson next proceeds to lay 
 down canons of trial by which to test alleged secondary senses, 
 in order to discover whether the impossibility of the primary 
 sense which he claims as essential, actually exists. Of these the 
 most important are these : 
 
 1. P. 90, " I assert that in no language under heaven can one 
 word designate two modes;" e. g. (BaitTU) cannot signify both dip 
 and sprinkle. This he avowedly asserts, " without reference to 
 the practice of language, on the authority of self-evident truth." 
 Another form in which he states it is this : " A word that applies 
 to two modes can designate neither. The same word cannot ex- 
 press different modes, though a word not significant of mode may 
 apply to all modes ;" e. g. wash, stain, wet, purify, are eflTects 
 which may be produced by pouring, dipping, or sprinkling. 
 " But modes are essentially different from each other, and can 
 have nothing in common. One word then caniK)t possibly dis- 
 tinguish them. The name of a mode is the word which expresses 
 
1*36 DR. carsoim's system, aind canons. §,46. 
 
 it, as distinguished from other modes. But it is impossible for 
 the same word to express the distinction of two modes. It might 
 more reasonably be supposed, that the word black may also be 
 employed to signify the idea denoted by white, as well as the idea 
 which it is employed to designate, because black and white admit 
 of degrees: but there are no degrees in mode," p. 90. All this 
 is avowedly a priori reasoning, not deduced from facts, but rest- 
 ing on the assumption that it is impossible so to use a word, or at 
 least absurd, and therefore no word is in fact so used. If this is 
 so, it is easy to compel the disciples of Dr. Carson to renounce 
 immersion as the sense of baptism. 
 
 Perfundo is used, beyond all doubt, to denote not only pouring 
 but sprinkling. In the 4th book of the Georgics, line 384, Gyrene 
 is represented as thrice sprinkling the burning fire with liquid 
 nectar, and thus causing it thrice to blaze on high. " Ter liquido 
 ardentem per/wfZ// Nectare Vestam." The sprinkling of dust on 
 the head of old Latinus is denoted by a participle of the same 
 verb, ^n. xii. 611. "Ganitiem immundo perfusam pulvere." 
 Mn. X. 520, it is used to denote the sprinkling of the blood of 
 slain captives on the funeral pile of Pallas. " Perfundat sanguine 
 flammas." Hence to sprinkle is given by Adams, Gesner, Ains- 
 worth, Facciolatus and Forcellinus, and Leverett, as one of its 
 senses. It is also the word used to denote clinic baptism by 
 sprinkling. 
 
 And yet Lactantius defines baptism by this word — Institutes, 
 book iv. chap. xv. He states that Ghrist was purified (tinctus) 
 in the river Jordan, to remove not his own sins but those of human 
 nature, so that as he had saved the Jews, by being circumcised, 
 he might save tlie Gentiles by baptism, that is, ly the s-prinlding 
 of purifying water. " Sic ctiam gentes haptismo, id est, purifici 
 roris perfitsione salvaret." Now even if Dr. Garson's disciples 
 were disposed to reject the sense to sprinkle in the passages first 
 quoted, and to insist on the sense to pour around, or throuirh, or 
 over, still it will not help the matter. For the mode to pour is as 
 unlike immersion as the mode to sprinkle. 
 
§ 46. DR. Carson's system, and canons. 137 
 
 Hence " perfusione" cannot be rendered by immersion, Dr. Car- 
 son being judge, and baptism is either sprinkling or pouring by 
 the express definition of Lactantius. 
 
 I say this is so, reasoning on Dr. Carson's canon. But the 
 fact is, that perfundo is used to denote actions involving three 
 unlike modes, viz. sprinkling, pouring, and immersion. 
 
 Its use to denote sprinkling I have illustrated where dust is 
 sprinkled on the head, or wine or blood on the fire. 
 
 Horace uses it to denote pouring cold water on a man by an 
 angry woman who has refused him entrance at the door. Sat. 
 ii. 7, 91. " Repulsum foribus perfundit gelida." But when a 
 horse immerses himself in a river, or when shepherds immerse 
 their sheep to wash them, the same word is used. 
 
 " Fluviis perfundunt pecus magistri," Virg. Gcorg. iii. 446. 
 " Equus assuetus aquce perfundi flumine noto," Mn. xi. 495. In 
 this last use, the water is neither poured nor sprinkled. The ob- 
 ject to which the word is applied is immersed in the water. 
 
 I am aware that such passages may be translated by intro- 
 ducing an effect of immersion, as for example washing, or 
 thoroughly wetting. Yet even this would be no relief to the 
 disciples of Dr. Carson, for unless they can make out immersion 
 as a sense of " perfusione," his theory as to the meaning of bap- 
 tism is lost, by the express definition of Lactantius. If they can 
 make out that sense by the aid of passages similar to those last 
 quoted, then his canon is lost. In fact both are lost, at any rate. 
 
 For the principle on which this a priori canon is based is false. 
 It assumes that the same word cannot be used to designate things 
 utterly unlike ; " modes," he says, " are essentially different 
 from each other, and can have nothing in common : one word 
 then cannot possibly distinguish them." And is not rapid motion 
 essentially different from absolute rest ? And do w^e not say to 
 denote absolute immobility, "he stood like a post?" And yet 
 Job says, " My days are sicifter than a post.'' Job ix. 25. And 
 does not Jeremiah say "one post shall run to meet another?" 
 Jer. li. 31. Shall we then say that one word cannot distinguisii 
 
138 DR. Carson's system, and canons. § 46, 
 
 ideas not only so unlike, but so directly opposite, and therefore 
 the word post is not so used ? 
 
 Again, the Latin word " inducere" is used to denote the mark- 
 ing down, or recording of items in an account ; " inducere pecu- 
 niam in rationem," to charge money in an account, Cic. And 
 yet the same Cicero uses the word inducere to denote the erasure 
 of what is written, as " inducere Senatus consultum, seu loca- 
 tionem," to erase a decree of the Senate, or a lease ; also, " in- 
 ducere nomina," to erase names. This use arose from the fact 
 that writings on wax tables were erased by drawing the wax over 
 the tablets. But shall we say the same word cannot possibly 
 distinguish ideas so opposite as to introduce into a record, and to 
 blot out from a record, and therefore induco is not so used ? 
 
 Can anything be more opposite than to cut or tear roughly, 
 and to smoothe and polish ? And yet the word to mangle is used 
 to denote both. The mangled body of a soldier might repose in 
 nicely mangled linen sheets. 
 
 The truth is, common sense and the context always guide us, 
 in such cases, and the actual usages of language refuse to be 
 bound by a priori canons as to what is possible or impossible. 
 
 2. In certain situations, two words, or even several words, 
 
 MAY V^riTH EQUAL PROPRIETY FILL THE SAME PLACE, THOUGH THEY ARE 
 ALL ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT IN THEIR SIGNIFICATIONS, p. 57 ; 6. g. 
 
 a man who is immersed, and is wet, and washed, and purified by 
 it, may, in describing the transaction, say truly, I was immersed ; 
 or 1 was wet ; or I was washed ; or I was purified ; and yet it 
 does not follow that all of these words mean the same thing. 
 Hence if, in describing the baptism of Christ, it is said he was 
 purified ; it does not follow of course that purify is a synonyme 
 of baptize. It may be that it is merely«jsed in its place. Dr. 
 Carson introduces this canon with great authority : "I do not 
 request my readers to admit my canon. I insist on their sub- 
 mission : let them deny it if they can." Dr. Carson obviously 
 looks upon this as a profound and original view ; for he says, 
 " it is from ignorance of this principle that lexicographers have 
 
^ ■!(:. DR. carson's system, and canons. 139 
 
 given meanings to words which they do not possess," p. 57. Its 
 truth I do not deny ; of its profundity and originality let others 
 judge. 
 
 3. " One mode of wetting is figured as another mode of wetting 
 by the liveliness of the imagination," p. 38 ; e. g. " A cold 
 shuddering dew dips me all o'er," — Milton. This canon is de- 
 signed to exclude the meaning to wet from fBa-TTTu, in the case 
 where it is said of Nebuchadnezzar : s§a{py) difo Tr,g 5p6(fou tou 
 oij^'Xvou TO tfojfJia a-orov, i. e. his body was wet by the dew of 
 heaven ; according to Dr. Carson, his body was dipped, is a 
 lively and imaginative mode of expressing his thorough wetting by 
 the dew ; which in fact was not a dipping. This canon exhausts 
 its full force in a vain effort to dispose of this passage.* 
 
 4. " Metaphor- is not bound to find examples to justify its par- 
 ticular figures ; but may indulge itself wherever it finds resem- 
 blance." Reply, p. 436. This canon is introduced, as we shall 
 see in its place, to repel my allegation that there are no examples 
 in the use of language to justify the figure, " immerse in the 
 Holy Spirit." 
 
 5. We are to distinguish between the nature of the rite and 
 the meaning of its name : e. g. when Chrysostom says, " Christ 
 calls his cross baptism, because by it he purified the world ;" he 
 may refer not to the import of the name of the rite, but to its na- 
 ture as a rite of purification. " It is quite immaterial whether 
 the idea of purification be found in the name or in the nature of 
 the ordinance." — Reply, p. 471. Such arc Dr. Carson's leading 
 canons of trial. 
 
 It is plain on looking at them, that they are all designed for one 
 end, to explain away alleged secondary senses, by proving that 
 the primary may be retained ; they do not prove that it is re- 
 tained, but that ij; may be, — that we are not compelled to admit a 
 secondary sense. 
 
 Dr. Carson's fmal step is to introduce what he calls the testi- 
 
 The preposition and forbids this interpretation. 
 
140 DR. Carson's system, and caissons. ^ 46. 
 
 mony of the word /Sa-n-Ti'^w itself; i. e. the fact that it clearly 
 has the sense immerse in other cases ; this, and the fact that it 
 may have it in this case, proves that it actually has it, however 
 improbable it may be, from the nature of the subject spoken of. 
 
 But Dr. Carson commonly takes this last step, by assuming the 
 very point in debate ; i. e. that he has proved that the word 
 ^a^Tj^w never means anything but immerse, in the whole range 
 of the Greek language ; when the very question in debate is : 
 Has it not another meaning ? For, 
 
 1. He has made only a limited examination of the uses of the 
 word. Quite large, indeed, in one view of the matter. Far 
 larger than was necessary if he merely aimed to prove that im- 
 merse is a meaning of /Sa-^rrj^w. But if he aimed to exclude every 
 other meaning, far too limited. The word /Sa-n'ri^w and its de- 
 rivatives occur in the writers of ecclesiastical Greek ten times, 
 not to say a hundred times more frequently than in all the classic 
 Greek writers taken together. For as a leading ordinance of 
 Christianity, through which the forgiveness of sins and eternal 
 life were supposed to come, baptism was to them a subject of deep 
 and incessant interest ; it filled all their thoughts — it gave color 
 to all their emotions — it pervaded all their voluminous works. 
 For successive folio pages, fSatri^u or its derivatives meet the eye 
 incessantly on every page. In them also the word is used with 
 direct reference to the Christian ordinance of baptism — so that no- 
 thing can be more in point than their testimony. And Dr. Carson 
 earnestly maintains that they must have known the sense in 
 which it was used by the apostles. Yet from this part of the 
 language, in his work on baptism, he produced few examples, 
 yea, I had almost said none. Nor have I yet been able to find 
 any proof that he had ever read the Greek Fathers on this sub- 
 ject — I do not say that he had not, but merely.that he has made 
 assertions that I know not how to explain if he had, as I shall 
 soon show. 
 
 2. On this limited examination of the uses of the word, he has 
 based the affirmation that he has " by the use of language found 
 
§ 46. DR. Carson's system, and canons. 141 
 
 that the word has this meaning (i. e. immerse), and no other." 
 He says lie has found this to be so. What does this mean ? Has 
 he examined every case of its usage in the Greek language ? He 
 does not pretend it. Nay, he clearly declares that he has not. 
 *' I regret," he says, " that I have not every passage in which the 
 word occurs in the Greek language." (On Baptism, p. 24.) 
 How, then, did Dr. Carson find that the word j^a-rTji^w means 
 immerse in passages which, even according to his own showing, 
 he never saw ? There can be no way except that in which he 
 establishes one of his canons, p. 90 : Without reference to the 
 practice of language and on the authority of self-evident 
 TRUTH ! ! Truly tliis is a convenient way of settling the mean- 
 ing of words. If this is not the way in which Dr. Carson has 
 found out the meaning of /Sa'm'^oj in cases which he has never 
 seen, I wait to learn by aid of what undiscovered principle he 
 has found it. 
 
 3. Upon a basis so frail Dr. Carson, with unparalleled bold- 
 ness, makes assertions as to the use of the word in the whole 
 range and history of the Greek language. P. 448, " Immersion 
 is the only meaning of the word in every instance in the whole 
 compass of the language." P. 449, "I tell Mr. Beecher it never 
 signifies to purify. My authority is the practice of the Greek 
 language." P. 464, he calls this "the ascertained meaning of 
 the word." P. 451, " its established meaning." 
 
 4. Incredible as it may seem, yet it is true, that on an assump- 
 tion so totally devoid of proof, on such a mere petitio principii, 
 Dr. Carson's whole argument against me is based. Having thus 
 found out and ascertained the meaning of the word, he calls it 
 " the testimony of the word known by its use," p. 451 ; " the 
 authority of the word," p. 452, and gravely informs us, p. 459, 
 tiiat " probability, even the highest probability avails nothing 
 against testimony;" and p. 464, "to allege probability against 
 the ascertained meaning of a word, is to deny testimony as a 
 source of evidence, for the meaning of testimony must be known 
 
142 DR. carson's system, and canons. § 46. 
 
 by the words used." But what is this testimony ? Is the word 
 /Sa-Trri'^w a living intelligent being ? Is it conscious of its own 
 meaning ? Has it testified to Dr. Carson as to its universal use ? 
 If not, and if Dr. Carson has seen but a few out of the multitude 
 of its usages, how dares he to call the little that he has seen, the 
 universal, absolute, and exclusive sense of the word, and then to 
 personify it, as a witness in a court of justice, swearing down all 
 probable evidence by direct testimony ? Never was there a 
 more perfect illusion than such reasoning as this. It is neither 
 more nor less than proving the point in question by incessantly 
 and dogmatically assuming it. For until he has first assumed, 
 without proof, that he has " found" or " ascertained," that /Sa'TTT-j'^w 
 means immerse, and nothing else, " in every instance in the 
 whole compass of the language," even in those cases which he 
 never saw, how can he make the word testify to that point ? 
 
 And yet this is his all-subduing argument in every case. 
 First, by his canons of trial he makes the sense immerse possi- 
 ble, and then brings forward his witness, (Bairri^c^, to testify that 
 it has but one sense in the whole range of the Greek tongue, and 
 that one immerse. He compares, p. 449, the meaning that he 
 claims, to a client whose title to the whole estate is in evidence. P. 
 451, " The couches were immersed, because the word has this 
 signification and no other." P. 450, " To deny this is to give 
 the lie to the inspired narrators. The word used by the Holy 
 Spirit signifies immersion, and immersion only." P. 453, " In 
 fact, to allege that the couches were not immersed, is not to decide 
 on the authority of the word used, but in opposition to this authori- 
 ty, to give the lie to the Holy Spirit. Inspiration employs a word 
 to designate the purification of the couches which never signifies 
 anything but immerse. If they were not immersed, the historian 
 is a false witness. This way of conferring meaning on words is 
 grounded on infidelity," Again : " When the Holy Spirit em- 
 ploys words whose meanings are not relished, critics do not say 
 that he lies, but they say what is equal to this, that his words 
 
§ 47. MY PRINCIPLES HOW DR. CARSON REPRESENTS THEM. 143 
 
 mean what they cannot mean. [This is a respectful way of call- 
 ing him a liar."]* I had said, Bib. Rep. April, 1840, p. 359,t 
 " The question is not : Will we believe that the couches were im- 
 mersed, if the Holy Ghost says so, but this, Has he said so V 
 and I decided that he has not. This, according to Dr. Carson, is 
 a respectful way of calling him a liar. Now, in reply to all this, I 
 totally deny Dr. Carson's whole ground work, in general, and in 
 particular — in the whole, and in all its parts. There is no such 
 testimony of the word (3airri^(jj, as he alleges. It is all a mere 
 fiction of Dr. Carson's, sustained by no evidence but his own un- 
 proved assertion. It is a mere dream. Does Dr. Carson allege 
 passages in which the meaning immerse clearly occurs ? I do 
 not deny the meaning in those cases : in other cases I do deny it, 
 and claim that there is satisfactory evidence of another sense. 
 And am I to be answered by such a mere figment as an alleged 
 testimony of the word as to its own use in all cases in the whole 
 language, when in fact all that this testimony amounts to, is Dr. 
 Carson's unproved assertion ? And on such grounds as these, am 
 I to be charged with giving the lie to the Holy Spirit ? And yet, 
 this is the whole foundation of Dr. Carson's argument against me. 
 His whole logical strength lies here. This mere petitio principii, 
 dressed up in all shapes, and urged with unparalleled assurance, 
 figures from beginning to end of his reply. In this consists its 
 whole heart, and soul, and mind, and strength, and life. It has 
 no energy that is not derived from this. 
 
 Such, then, are Mr. Carson's principles — such is his system, 
 and such the mode in which he applies his principles. 
 
 § 47. My Principles — Hoiv Dr. Carson represents them. 
 
 Of my principles he speaks fiercely ; and calls them false, fima- 
 tical, and subversive of all revealed truth. It is important, then, 
 
 * This sentence is omitted in the last edition of Dr. Carson's reply to me. 
 t See § 14, 
 
144 MY PRINCIPLES HOAV DR. CARSON REPRESENTS THEM. § 47. 
 
 to inquire what are they ? and has Dr. Carson truly represented 
 them? 
 
 In answer to this, I reply, he has not. 
 
 He has nowhere fairly stated or answered my principles at all ; 
 and no one from his reply could imagine what they are. What 
 then has he done ? He discusses no principles at the outset. He 
 merely says that I have proved no secondary sense of ^acrTj^w, 
 and that " my dissertation is no more to critical deduction than 
 Waverley or Kenilworth to history. Indeed the relation is not so 
 true ; it wants that verisimilitude which is to be found in the 
 novels of the illustrious Scott. To the ignorant there is an ap- 
 pearance of philosophy and learning, but sound criticism will 
 have little difficulty in taking the foundation from under the edi- 
 fice which he has labored to erect," page 429. He then takes up 
 the passages on which I rely, and proceeds, in his way, to take out 
 the foundation. That is, he assumes the truth of his own princi- 
 ples, though I had proved them to be false — suppresses or misre- 
 presents mine, and then declares that all the evidence I have ad- 
 duced is no proof — and is filled with unutterable amazement at 
 my excessive want of perspicacity, etc. All of which amounts 
 to merely this, that I rely on arguments which his principles re- 
 ject, but which are sound and unanswerable according to my 
 own. In other words, though I have proved his principles to be 
 false, yet because I do not see with his eyes, therefore I do not 
 see at all, but am stupid, blind, etc. 
 
 At length, on p. 464, he thus represents my principles. 
 
 " Mr. Beecher proceeds on an axiom that is false, fanatical, and 
 subversive of all revealed truth — namely, that meaning is to be 
 assigned to words in any document, not from the authority of the 
 use of language, ascertained by acknowledged- examples, but 
 from views of probability of the thing related independently of 
 the testimony of the word." 
 
 Dr. Carson does not pretend that this axiom is stated in my 
 words ; but he gives it in his own words, and in italics too, as a 
 condensed summary of my principles. To all this I have but one 
 
^ 48. TRUE STATEMENT OF MY PRINCIPLES. 145 
 
 reply to make, and that is a direct denial. I reject this statement 
 of my views, as entirely delusive, and totally unfair. Do I indeed 
 avowedly disregard the authority of the use of language, ascer- 
 tained by acknowledged examples, in assigning meaning to words ? 
 All my principles are avowedly derived from the use of language, 
 ascertained by acknowledged examples, and rest upon this use. 
 
 What I actually do is this. In assigning a secondary meaning 
 to words, I regard three things at least, and not one alone. I re- 
 gard, 1. General laws of language, established by examples. 2. 
 The original and primary sense of particular words. 3. The 
 circumstances of the speaker, and the nature of the subject 
 spoken of. It is by considering all these that I decide when a 
 word has a secondary sense. 
 
 § 48. True Statement of my Princqjles. 
 
 My principles are fully and carefully set forth in §§ 1-7, occu- 
 pying in all nearly 18 pages. No one who will carefully read 
 them, can mistake them, or think that I hold the views ascribed to 
 me by Dr. Carson. I cannot again go over all that ground ; but 
 for the sake of perspicuity, I will here briefly recapitulate the 
 most important of my principles. 
 
 1. In assigning secondary senses, we are to be guided, as just 
 stated, by general lav/s of language, the primary meaning of the 
 word, the circumstances of the speaker, and the nature of the 
 subject spoken of. 
 
 2. One of these general laws is, that, inasmuch as in all lan- 
 guages, a large number of words have left their primary sense 
 and adopted secondary senses, it is never a priori improbable that 
 the same should be true of any particular word. 
 
 3. But whilst such transitions are common in all words, they 
 are particularly common in words of the class of /3a<rTi^w, denot- 
 ing action by, or with a reference to a fluid. This is owing to 
 the fact, that the effects produced by the action depend not on the 
 
 7 
 
148 TRUE STATEMENT OF MY PRINCIPLES. § 48. 
 
 action alone, but on the action and the fluid combined, and of 
 course may be varied as the fluid or its application varies. And 
 this I illustrated at great length, by acknowledged examples of the 
 use of language in the case of cognate words. 
 
 From this I inferred that the usages of languages create no 
 probability against a secondary sense of the word (Swri'Ti^u, but 
 that the probability is decidedly in its favor. Still further, I al- 
 leged, 
 
 4. That the existence of manners and customs tending to such 
 a result, renders such a result still more probable ; and that 
 among the Jews such manners and customs did exist. 
 
 5. That this probability is still more increased according to 
 the laws of language, by the fact that ,/3a'7r'Tj^w refers to the work 
 of the Holy Spirit, and that this is to purify, and that no external 
 act has in itself any fitness to present this idea to the mind. For 
 the effects of pouring, sprinkling, and immersion, depend not on 
 the act, but on the fluid. The act being the same, ink, or oil, or 
 wine, or pure water, or filthy water, would produce effects en- 
 tirely unlike. The law of language in this case is, that in the 
 progress of society new ideas produce either new words or new 
 senses of old words — and that ^a'n'ri^o), when applied to the opera- 
 tions of the Holy Ghost, was applied to a subject of thought un- 
 known to the writers of classic Greek, and therefore had probably 
 undergone a change to qualify it for its purpose, i. e. to designate 
 his peculiar work. 
 
 Now all of these principles relate to general laws of language, 
 and in proof of them I appealed to acknowledged facts in the use 
 of lantjuao^e. 
 
 But I clearly stated that these principles do not of themselves 
 prove that /^a-Trn'^w means to purify, but merely open the way 
 for such proof, and enable us to decide what, and how much proof 
 is needed in order to prove the point. I also definitely stated that 
 it was to be proved as other facts are, i. e. by appropriate evi- 
 dence. 
 
§ 48. TRUE STATEMENT OF MY PRINCIPLES. 147 
 
 And here comes up the real ground of difference between Dr. 
 Carson and me. This point deserves particular attention. The 
 whole stress of this part of the battle is concentrated here. 
 
 1. Dr. Carson assumes, against all these previous probabilities, 
 that a secondary sense in the word (Swrrri^u cannot be established 
 except by the highest possible proof, i. e. a case in which the 
 primitive sense is impossible. This I totally deny, and maintain 
 that a lower degree of proof is amply sufficient to establish a mean- 
 ing, which the laws of language have already rendered so pro- 
 bable. 
 
 2. Dr. Carson totally disregards not only the lower degrees of 
 moral evidence, but the laws of cumulative evidence also. He 
 takes each passage separately, and if he can prove that it does 
 not come up to his canon of proof, i. e. if it cannot be shown that 
 the sense immersion is impossible, he sets it aside as a cipher, and 
 so of every other one in detail. He then says, "each of the 
 cases considered separately is nothing ; all taken together, then, 
 must be nothing. It is the addition or multiplication of ciphers." 
 — Reply, p. 465. 
 
 All this I totally deny, and maintain that it is entirely at war 
 with the laws of moral and cumulative evidence. Because the 
 reasoning of philology is not demonstrative, but moral and cumu- 
 lative, and an ultimate result depends upon the combined impres- 
 sion of all the facts of a given case as a whole, on the principle 
 that the view which best harmonizes all the facts, and falls in 
 with the known laws of the human mind, is true. 
 
 And where many separate and independent facts all tend, 
 with different degrees of probability, to a common result, there is 
 an evidence over and above the evidence furnished by each case 
 in itself, in the coincidence of so many separate and independent 
 probabilities, in a common result. And to prove that each may 
 be explained otherwise, and is not in itself a demonstration, can- 
 not break the force of the fact that so many separate and inde- 
 pendent probabilities all tend one way. The probability thus 
 produced, is greater than the sum of the separate probabilities ; it 
 
148 DR. Carson's course and his objections. § 49. 
 
 has the force of the fact that they coincide, and that the assump- 
 tion of the truth of the meaning in which they all coincide, is the 
 only mode of explaining the coincidence. 
 
 Any one of the following facts may be true of a young gentle- 
 man and a lady, to whom it is not improper or improbable that he 
 should be married, without giving reason to believe that they are 
 engaged. They may be seen walking together in one instance, 
 or riding together, or in a store together, or looking at furniture 
 together, or they may exchange letters in one instance with each 
 other, or they may be seen examining a house together ; and each 
 act may be such as not to prove an engagement ; but can all these 
 acts take place in connexion with each other, and each be oft re- 
 peated, and yet furnish no higher proof of an engagement than 
 any one alone ? Shall we say each is nothing, and therefore all 
 taken together are nothing ; it is the addition or multiplication of 
 ciphers ? 
 
 So, if there is no reason why ^airri^c^ should not have the sense 
 purify, and a strong probability that it should, and innumerable 
 facts on all sides create each a probability of it, is the existence 
 and coincidence of all these facts nothing, because each by itself 
 does not demonstrate it ? Such is Dr. Carson's position — such is 
 not mine. Who is correct let the universal opinions and prac- 
 tices of mankind, and the laws of circumstantial evidence in all 
 courts of justice, decide. 
 
 Such, in short, are my principles, and my whole argument, 
 tested by these, is sound and unanswerable. Dr. Carson in re- 
 plying to me, ought first to have stated them clearly, and to have 
 shown their falsehood, if he could. This he has not done, nor at- 
 tempted to do, and that for the best of all reasons, they admit of 
 no reasonable denial, and they cannot be disproved. 
 
 § 49. Dr. Carson's Course and his Objections. 
 
 What then does Dr. Carson do ? Hear him, p. 429. " To 
 much of the former part of the work I can have no possible ob- 
 
§ 49. DR. carson's course and his objections. 149 
 
 jection, because it is a mere echo of my own philological doc- 
 trines, illustrated with different examples. In a work controvert- 
 ing the conclusions which I have drawn in my treatise on baptism, 
 it surely was very unnecessary to prove that words may have a 
 secondary meaning wandering very far from their original import. 
 Can any writer be pointed out who has shown this more fully 
 than I have done ? I do not question this principle. / have laid 
 it down for him as a foundation." We have here an admirable 
 specimen of Dr. Carson's usual modesty and humility. Does Dr. 
 Carson indeed regard himself as the father of the doctrine, that 
 words may have a secondary meaning wandering very far from 
 their original import ? If not, why does he call it his own philo- 
 logical doctrine ? It is 7n?7ie as truly as his. Does he indeed 
 think that he has laid it down for me as a foundation ? My teach- 
 ers in college, yea, in my childhood, had anticipated Dr. Carson 
 in that work. Even in my sophomore year, it never occurred to 
 me that this was a discovery, a new idea. On what other prin- 
 ciple have all sound modern lexicographers and commentators 
 ever proceeded ? I stated it, not because I deemed it a new idea, 
 but because I did not. Because I considered it a first principle of 
 common sense on the whole subject. I was, indeed, surprised to 
 see it fully recognised by Dr. Carson ; Baptists are so prone to 
 forget it. But I should as soon think of calling the doctrine that 
 there is a God, or that every effect must have a cause, my own 
 doctrine, as to call the doctrine that words may have a secondary 
 sense, my own. 
 
 But Dr. Carson says, " to much of the former part of the work 
 I can have no possible objection." Very well. Of how much is 
 this true ? Fle does not say ; he implies that to some, he does ob- 
 ject, but does not say to what. This again is a prudent silence. 
 It would not answer to state fairly, and in my own words, what he 
 does object to. For the mere statement of the principles on which 
 my argument rests is their proof. And they are entirely fatal to 
 his cause. 
 
 What then docs he do ? He proceeds to the discussion of the 
 
150 DR. carson's course and his objections. § 49. 
 
 passages alleged by me, and silently assuming tlie truth of his 
 own positions, in cases where we differ, he charges upon me ig- 
 norance of the laws of controversy, want of perspicacity, heresy, 
 nonsense, blasphemy, etc., because my conclusions do not agree 
 with his premises, though they follow irresistibly from my own. 
 Would it not have been much better to show that my premises 
 were false ? Alas ! that he could not do. Being determined not 
 to admit the truth, he did the only thing that remained, first to 
 misrepresent, and then to deny it. 
 
 Let it not then be forgotten that the real question at issue is not 
 this, Shall a secondary meaning of /Sa-TTTt^w be admitted from 
 mere views of probability, without reference to the usages of lan- 
 guage, or to the primary meaning of the word ? but this : A cer- 
 tain secondary sense of /Sa'^Ti'^w being probable according to the 
 laws of language and of the human mind, how much evidence is 
 needed to prove it, and of what kind shall it be ? Dr. Carson 
 says, an impossibility of the primitive sense in some one instance, 
 and rejects all degrees of probability below this, as ciphers. I 
 deny the necessity of such proof, and allege that a proof may be 
 made out by lower degrees of probability, so coinciding, as to 
 form a cumulative argument on the principles of circumstantial 
 evidence. 
 
 But Dr. Carson may say that these degrees of probability arise, 
 not from the words of the record, but from the nature of the thing 
 spoken of. True, they do ; and so does the impossibility that he 
 demands. Why is it impossible to immerse a lake in the blood 
 of a mouse ? Not the word /Ja-Trrw, but the nature of things for- 
 bids it. Why is it highly improbable that all the Jews immersed 
 their couches ? Not the word /Sa-TTTi'^w, but the nature of things, 
 makes it highly improbable that such a practice was ever univer- 
 sal among all the Jeivs, though it is not absolutely impossible. 
 Does Dr. Carson mean that, in assigning the meaning to words, 
 we are not to regard the nature and properties of the things spoken 
 of at all ? Or that we are to regard them only when they render 
 a particular meaning impossible ? But why this distinction ? On 
 
§ 49. DR. Carson's course and his objections. 151 
 
 what is it founded ? Here are nine cases in which a given 
 secondary meaning is probable, in different degrees, rising one 
 above another, till at last we reach a tenth, in which no other 
 meaning is possible. Hero, says Dr. Carson, is something worthy 
 of being regarded ; but all the nine preceding degrees must be 
 dismissed as ciphers. Is this sound philosophy ? 
 
 But Dr. Carson says that my principle is the same with that of 
 the Unitarians. I reply, so is his. My principle is, that in as- 
 signing secondary meanings to words, we are to regard the nature 
 of the things spoken of ; and this is his, — and it is also a princi- 
 ple of the Unitarians, and of all persons of common sense. Does 
 a truth cease to be a truth because Unitarians hold it ? 
 
 But Dr. Carson says that, on the ground of j^robahilities derived 
 from the thing spoken of, Unitarians and Neologists explain away 
 the word of God. So they do on the ground of possibilities de- 
 rived from the nature of things spoken of. Has Dr. Carson never 
 heard the argument, that three persons cannot be one God ? and 
 that the word God is therefore to be taken in a lower and second- 
 ary sense, when applied to Christ ? 
 
 And will he reject a true principle of interpretation because it 
 m«y be and has been falsely applied ? The principle is true, let 
 it lead to what results it may, that in the interpretation of all lan- 
 guage we must look to the things spoken of, and regard all that 
 we know of their nature, properties, and laws, and not needlessly 
 involve a writer in a contradiction of any of them ; and especially 
 is this true of the word of God, for it is inspired ; and he who 
 made the laws of mind and matter is not to be represented as con- 
 tradicting them in his word. And yet, what principle have Uni- 
 tarians employed more than this, against the Trinity ? Is it then 
 a Unitarian principle 1 Nay, rather it is a true principle ; falsely 
 applied, indeed, but still true. 
 
 So the principle of regarding probabilities derived from the na- 
 ture of the subject, in assigning secondary senses to words, may 
 be abused ; yet it is nevertheless a true principle, and one of vast 
 importance. 
 
152 DR. carson's course and his objections. § 49. 
 
 We are also to regard the primary meaning in assigning second- 
 ary senses. It would not be rational to assign to fSwTrri^c^ the 
 sense to sing or dance, because no law of the mind, and no cir- 
 cumstances, manners, or customs, led from the sense immerse to 
 them, and no analogy illustrates such a transition : they are, 
 a 'priori, and in every respect improbable. It is not so of the 
 sense to purify. It denotes an eifect of immersion in pure water. 
 Such a transition is natural, it follows the analogy of language, 
 and circumstances render it probable ; of course it admits of 
 an easy proof by probabilities derived from the nature of the 
 thing spoken of. 
 
 Sach is my answer to Dr. Carson's vaunted argument from 
 the Columbo bridge. The case is this : Near Columbo is a 
 school, on the bank of a river ; over this river is a bridge of boats. 
 It is related by Whitecross, that certain boys, too poor to pay the 
 toll, were accustomed to swim across the river to attend the 
 school. Here, says Dr. Carson, according to Mr. Beecher's 
 philology, if we had only a general statement of the fact, that 
 the boys so swam, a foreigner must take swim as meaning to 
 walk over a bridge of boats, for it is entirely improbable that the 
 boys would swim when there was a bridge. To this I reply : Dr. 
 Carson admits that no one who reads the whole story in White- 
 cross could make such a mistake. For he tells us that they did 
 not cross the bridge, and why ;— and why they swam, and car- 
 ried their books, and how. As to /Sa-TTTj^w, we have the whole 
 story. If we had but a part of the story, as to the boys, still I 
 reply, there is no relation between the sense to swim, and the sense 
 to walk on a bridge, such as exists between immerse and purify. 
 Immersion in pure water tends to produce purification. Does 
 swimming in a river tend to produce walking over a bridge ? Dr. 
 Carson alleges that words denoting unlike modes, have nothing in 
 common. How then can swimming in water, tend to the sense 
 walking on a bridge ? Can Dr. Carson refer me to such a tran- 
 sition in the whole range of the Greek language, or any other ? 
 Why then does he set this forth as a case parallel with mine, and 
 
§ 50. APPEAL TO FACTS. 153 
 
 adapted clearly to show my folly ? Yet he exults as if this case 
 were an end of all controversy, and refers to it in his reply again 
 and again. Miserable is that cause that drives its advocates to 
 such shifts as these. 
 
 § 50. Appeal to Facts. 
 
 But all principles are seen most clearly in the light of facts. 
 To them then let us turn. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus (p. 387, Lugduni Batav. 1616) says, 
 »j Sixwv Tou iBa'n'ricfixaros sly] av xal tj sx Mwutfs'wf ifapadsSoixivr] roTg 
 ito\y]roAg C)6s -ttw^ : 
 
 ' H 8' vSpYivajj^ivr] xai^apo, XP^'' ^VfJ^ar' iXovcfa (Odyss. iv. 759). 
 7j TLrivsXo'n'Yi sifi rrjv sv-)(riv s^-^srai TriKi^Ka-^og 8s 
 
 XsTpag vi-^aixsvos itoXiTiC, akos sv-x^sr' 'A^tjvvj (Odyss. ii. 261.) 
 "'E^og TovTo ' Iov8aiU)v oj^ xal to TtoXKaxig sitl xoirr} (3a'7rri^S(f&ai. 
 
 On this I remark, 
 
 1. That Clement is in the context speaking of Christian 
 baptism. 
 
 2. He states that "that may be an image of baptism which has 
 been handed down from Moses to the poets, thus — 
 
 Penelope having washed herself, and having on her body clean 
 apparel, goes to prayer, and Telemachus having washed his 
 hands in the hoary sea, prayed to Minerva, This was the cus- 
 tom of the Jews that they also should be often baptized upon their 
 couch." 
 
 Let us now look at the nature of things. Here is before us, as 
 a nation, the Jews. They were accustomed to recline on couches 
 at meals. These couches were large enough to hold from three 
 to five persons. Clement states that it was their custom to be 
 baptized often upon their couch. We know that as a matter 
 of fact it was their custom to wash their hands often during 
 their meals, whilst reclining upon their couches — and the fre- 
 quent immersions of men on a couch during their meals, is an 
 
 7* 
 
154 APPEAL TO FACTS. § 50. 
 
 unheard of thing. We look at the context. He had just 
 spoken of Telemachus as washing his hands — using viVrw — and 
 of Penelope as washing herself, using u^^aivw, a word perfectly 
 generic, and no more limited to one mode than our word wash. 
 We look further on, and we find that these are spoken of as an 
 image of baptism, handed down from Moses to the poets. We 
 reflect that these are rites of purification, and that Clement had 
 been speaking of purity as essential in order to see God. And 
 can we longer doubt ? Washing the hands is a purification. 
 Pilate used it to denote his innocence. The Psalmist says, I will 
 wash my hands in innocence. All things point us to purity and pu- 
 rification. The sense is a priori probable — we adopt it. We be- 
 lieve that the Jews were in the habit of purifying themselves often 
 upon their couch at meals, just as Telemachus did, that is, by 
 washing their hands. 
 
 But was it not possible to have a fixed pulley over each couch 
 in the dining-room, and ropes attached to the corners of the couch, 
 and a baptistery in the floor below, covered by a trap door, and 
 was it not possible to elevate the couches, open the trap doors, and 
 immerse guests and couches together, and to do it often during 
 the same meal ? But it would be excessively inconvenient. No 
 matter for that, what will not superstition do ? But washing 
 hands is spoken of as an image of baptism. No matter, it is an 
 image of it as to its nature, whatever may be the meaning of the 
 name. (We shall hereafter see how much use Dr. Carson makes 
 of this distinction.) Now all this may be said. Dr. Carson on 
 his principles is obliged to say it. But whom will it convince ? 
 None but the man who has a cause to maintain, which is lost so 
 soon as he admits that the word ^aitri^u means to purify, irre- 
 spective of mode. 
 
 Now in this case, the probability is so high as to produce on 
 every disinterested mind the impression of certainty, yet because 
 it does not reach Dr. Carson's arbitrary canon, it is to be rejected 
 as a cipher. But who will dare to reject it ? After the violence 
 
§ 50. APPEAL TO FACTS. 155 
 
 of party spirit has put forth all its energies, common sense will 
 certainly resume her sway, and cover all such evasions with 
 merited disgrace. 
 
 Let us look at another case. 
 
 Justin Martyr (p. 164. London 1772) says, t» ya^ ocpsXog 
 ixs vou Tou /^a-TrTiVjxaroj, o to^v da^xix xal (xovov to (fufxa cpaiS^Cvsi ; 
 (BaifTiadrirs Ty;v ■^v)(y})j difo o^yr^S, xcii dito irXsovi^iocg, diro (p^ovou, 
 d'JTo i^Kf ovg xal loov to Cwjuia xuda^ov scTti, " What is the profit of 
 that baptism which purifies the flesh and the body alone ? Be 
 baptized as to your souls, from anger and from covetousness, 
 from envy and from hatred, and lo ! your body is pure." We 
 look at the nature of things. An actual immersion for the sake 
 of purity does not belong to the mind. We look at the usages of 
 language. The mind is never spoken of as figuratively immersed, 
 for mental purity. It is spoken of as immersed in cares, troubles, 
 pollution, &c. We look at the language used. (Ba'Ttri^oj is fol- 
 lowed by dito preceding that from which the mind is to be 
 cleansed — this suits the sense to purify, but not the sense to im- 
 merse. We say naturally be purijied from anger — not be im- 
 mersed from anger. We look at the context. Justin had been 
 speaking of the atonement of Christ, and of its power to cleanse 
 from sin. He had just spoken of the passage in Isaiah, wash 
 you, make you clean, as referring to baptism. He has spoken of 
 purifying, washing, cleansing, in various forms, but has used no 
 undisputed equivalent of immersion, such as xara^uw. Whether 
 then we look at the nature of things, or the general usages of 
 language, or the particular language of this passage, or of the 
 context, all tends to one result. All things, with united voice, 
 call out for the sense to purify. And it is the sense ; and the 
 true translation of the passage is this : " What is the profit of tliat 
 purification, wliich purifies the flesh and the body alone ? Be 
 purified as to your souls, from anger and from covetousness, from 
 envy and from hatred, and lo ! your body is pure.'"' And long 
 after all tlie efforts of party spirit to v/rest it to any other sense 
 
156 DR. carson's principles subvert themselves. § 51. 
 
 have found an ignominious grave, it will stand in its native 
 simplicity and beauty, satisfying and delighting every candid 
 mind by its inherent and self-evidencing power of truth. Another 
 sense can indeed be forced on these words by the violence of 
 arbitrary canons of logic and rhetoric. But the laws of language, 
 and of the human mind, though for a time suppressed by force, 
 cannot die. They will break through all rhetorical and logical 
 chains, and assert and make good their indefeasible claims. 
 
 I do not advocate these principles so earnestly because there 
 are no passages that can meet Dr. Carson's highest claims, — in 
 my second book I have produced such, and I have many more 
 to produce before I close, — but because [ wish to repel his unrea- 
 sonable claims of evidence, and to restore the usages of language 
 to their true and inherent liberties, against his violence and force. 
 
 The human mind is an instrument of wondrous delicacy, and 
 language is its mirror. The slightest influence of taste, circum- 
 stances, and subjects of thought, affect its meaning. The manner 
 in which it passes from sense to sense, in the use of words is to be 
 ascertained by observation, and cannot be fixed a priori, by 
 theory. And if it passes easily from sense to sense, in words of 
 a given class, no man has a right to make the proof that it has so 
 passed, difficult, yea, almost impossible, for party ends, and by 
 arbitrary canons of evidence. Yet this. Dr. Carson has done. 
 He has provided rhetorical and logical cords and chains, for 
 forcing back and confining to the primitive sense, all usages of 
 the word /Da-Trri'^w which seem to have left it, and happy is that 
 word which has energy enough to retain its inalienable rights of 
 freedom, after he has laid his hands upon it. 
 
 § 51. Dr. Carson'' s Principles subvert themselves. 
 
 But happily. Dr. Carson furnislies the means of destroying his 
 own principles. I have said that his practice is against his own 
 principles. " Does he not admit that /Soc'titoj means to dve or 
 
§ 51. DR. carson's principles subvert themselves. 157 
 
 color when it is applied to the beard and hair ? And is it im- 
 possible to dip these ? Improbable surely it is, but not half so 
 much as the immersion of couches." Hear his reply. "Here 
 I am caught at last. Surely my feet are entangled in my own 
 net. But let the reader see with what ease I can extricate my- 
 self. The assertion of my antagonist arises from his want of 
 discrimination" (of course, as I happen to differ from Dr. Carson). 
 ^' I admit that (Sairrcjj has a secondary signification, because such 
 secondary signification is in proof, and instances may be alleged 
 in which its primary meaning is utterly impossible," e. g. the 
 immersion of a lake in the blood of a mouse. " Show me any- 
 thing like this with respect to fSarrri^u), and I will grant a second- 
 ary meaning. And as soon as a secondary n^aning is ascer- 
 tained on sufficient grounds, I do not demand in every instance a 
 proof of impossibility of primary meaning before the secondary is 
 alleged. The competition between rival meanings must then be 
 determined on other grounds." So then all cases of probability 
 are to be set aside as ciphers, till one case can be found to come 
 up to Dr. Carson's canon ; and, however numerous they are, to 
 adduce them is only adding ciphers to ciphers, or multiplying 
 ciphers by ciphers. But as soon as one case of the right kind is 
 found, lo ! all these ciphers at once assume a value. Dr. Carson 
 is now willing to admit them on lower evidence. If he had not 
 found the passage as to tlie lake and the mouse, or some one like 
 it, he must have believed that the Indians dip their beards and 
 hair, not that they dye them — but now it is easy to see that they 
 do not dip them but dye them. Is this sound philosophy ? If it 
 is. Dr. Carson has dug a mine under all of his reply to me. All 
 my cases of probability, according to him, are as yet ciphers. 
 But I may find the lucky passage at last — and lo ! they spring 
 into life and put in their claims for a new trial. Can Dr. Carson 
 refuse it? If not, then all his labor is in vain. He must do all 
 his work over again, and judge on new principles and with new 
 results. Let us try and see if we cannot find a passage. 
 
158 CASES. CLINIC BAPTISM. PURIFYING AGENTS. § 52. 
 
 § 52. Cases. Clinic Baptism. Purifying Agents. 
 
 In Routh's Reliquiae Sacree, vol. iii. p. 48, occurs a passage 
 from Nicephorus, describing a clinic baptism, u^dr'' d'n'o&avs7(f&(xi 
 'jr^odSoxiixov ovra <ro vSu^ airrjcTai Xa^sn;' 6 8s xal h aurji rfj xXivj} jj 
 hsTro irs^i^u^svTa. Syj&sv ilSaziri^sv. " So that he, expecting to die, 
 asked to receive the water, i. e. baptism. And he baptized him, 
 even upon his couch upon which he lay." Did he then take up 
 couch, man and all, and immerse them ? Dr. Carson must say- 
 yes, if it is possible — and is it not ? But stay, there is still 
 another word, its^i-xy&svra, which expressly defines the mode. It 
 is by affusion ! So then we have at length reached the mark, 
 and immersion is pointedly excluded, unless affusion or sprinkling 
 is immersion. And now Dr. Carson's labor is all lost, and it will 
 be doubly and trebly lost on his own principles, before I am 
 through, for cases equal or superior to this in strength, abound. 
 Will Dr. Carson say, that the phrase, siyz y^^ri to roiourov fSaitTKfixa 
 ovofxatfaj, follows 1 It does, indeed, and implies a doubt of the 
 propriety of calling such a transaction a baptism ; but could there 
 be any doubt of the utter impropriety of calling it an immersion ? 
 Is it, indeed, doubtful, whether pouring or sprinkling is immer- 
 sion ? Let Dr. Carson look at his own canon, and can he doubt ? 
 What then was the doubt ? Whether such a transaction was a 
 real purijication, or remission of sins. This was the point on 
 which doubt existed, as the question proposed to Cyprian, and his 
 answer alike imply. The common mode of purifying, i. e. re- 
 mitting sins, was by immersion. In the case of those who were 
 in danger of death, another mode was used — all confessed that it 
 was another mode. Did this, could it raise the question, whether 
 two modes, by the confession of all totally unlike, were yet so 
 nearly alike, that the name of one could be applied to the other ? 
 Or did it raise this question, whether the new mode was in fact 
 effectual to absolve from sin, that is, was it an effectual purifica- 
 tion, or remission of sins ? It did, and Cyprian decided that it 
 was. So then, no sense but purification is possible in this case. 
 
§ 52. CASES. CLINIC BAPTISM. PURIFYING AGENTS. 159 
 
 So that this is the true translation of the passage : " He, expect- 
 ing to die, asked to receive the water, and he purified him by- 
 affusion, even upon the bed upon which he lay — if, indeed, it is 
 proper to call such a transaction a purification." All my so-called 
 ciphers are, therefore, at once restored to their full and true 
 value. 
 
 The expression, " asked to receive the water," seems singular. 
 Its singularity will cease when we consider another usage of the 
 fathers. They were accustomed to call water itself a baptism. 
 So they called blood a baptism. On what ground ? On the 
 same ground on which Christ is called our sanctification and 
 salvation, because he sanctifies and saves us. On this ground 
 they called water a purification, because it purifies. It is a 
 purifier. On what ground could they call water an immersion ? 
 It is not an i?nmerser. It does not immerse us — others immerse 
 us in it, and it purifies us. If the fact that others immerse us in 
 water, justifies us in calling it an immersion, there is the same 
 reason for calling it a sprinkling or a pouring — for others sprinkle 
 us with it, or pour it on us. But what shall we say of blood ? 
 Was there a rite of immersion in blood ? Men were purified by 
 blood, but it was by sprinkling, not by immersion. Why then 
 call it an immersion ? Here all possibility of the sense immer- 
 sion is cut off. The truth is, that by a natural metonymy, 
 means of purification were called baptisms, i. e. purifications, 
 transferring the name of the effect to the cause. 
 
 So Tertullian (p. 357. Paris, 1634) says, speaking of the wa- 
 ter and the blood, " Hos duo baptismos de vulnere perfossi lateris 
 emisit." " These two baptisms he poured forth from the wound 
 of his pierced side." Did he mean to say that Christ poured forth 
 two immersions from his wounded side 1 or that he sent forth two 
 purifications ? So Augustine uses such passages as these, " bap- 
 tismus, id est aqua :" again, " baptismus, id est aqua salutis.' 
 Isidore Hispalensis (Monumenta Orthodoxographa, p. 1774), 
 speaking of the water that flowed from the side of Christ, says, 
 " baptismus est aqua," and gives as his reason, " nullum aliud 
 
160 EXPIATION BY SPRINKLING, CALLED BAPTISM. § 53. 
 
 est elementum quod purgat omnia." That is, " water is a purifi- 
 cation, because there is no other element that purifies all things." 
 Once more : air was regarded as a purifying element and a type 
 of the Holy Spirit ; and thunder was regarded as a compound of 
 water and air. The philosophy was false. But to what language 
 did it give rise ? Maximus (p. 449, vol. ii. Paris, 1675) says, 
 that sons of thunder means sons of Baptism. The reason is, r) 
 ^povrri (TuviVraraj sf vSccTog xou ■Trvsujaarocr. Thunder is composed 
 of water and air, and this he calls ixuCrayw^ia tou fSaTCr'KfiJ.aTog, 
 i. e. a mystic intimation of purification ; and sons of thunder 
 means, on this ground, sons of purification. What has immer- 
 sion to do with all this ? Again, Anastasius speaks of baptism as 
 poured into the water-pots ; and the water-pots as baptized by 
 pouring baptism into them, Bibliotheca Patrum, vol. v. p. 958. 
 Does he mean that the pots were immersed by pouring immersion 
 into them, or that they were purified by pouring purification, i. e. 
 water, a purifier, into them ? This transaction he regards as a 
 type of the baptism of the Gentiles. Did he suppose that they 
 were to be immersed by pouring immersion upon them ? 
 
 These passages are in themselves sufficient to settle the case. 
 But as Mr. Carson attaches so much importance to the proof of 
 an impossibility of the sense of immersion, I will add a few more 
 passages. 
 
 § 53. Other Cases. Expiation ly Sprinkling called Baptism. 
 
 The passages now to be adduced are designed to prove this posi- 
 tion ; that the fathers apply the word (SaitTi^oj to denote expia- 
 tion by sprinkling, and, indeed, expiation however made, so that 
 all the sprinklings and other expiations of the Mosaic ritual, and 
 even of the whole heathen world, are spoken of as baptisms. 
 
 Before proceeding to adduce the passages, it will add to the 
 clearness of our ideas, to recur to the usages of language on the 
 subject of sacrificial purification, or expiation by atonement. 
 We have seen, then, that ideas of absolution, expiation, forgive- 
 
§ 53. EXPIATION BY SPRINKLING, CALLED BAPTISM. 161 
 
 ness, are expressed in Greek by xa&a^i^u), to make pure, to purify 
 — also, that the actual removal of moral pollution by the truth 
 and the Spirit are denoted by the same word. Now, in spiritual 
 baptism, these things always co-exist, i. e. those who are for- 
 given are always made pure in fact, yet there is a logical distinc- 
 tion between the two ideas, and the word x«^a^i(Jw directs the mind 
 sometimes to one chiefly, and sometimes to the other. We see in 
 English the same idiom in our use of the words clear and purge. 
 They have a legal sense denoting to absolve, as when God says 
 he will not clear the guilty ; and sin or guilt are said to be purged 
 away by the blood of Christ. So in law, we read of purging by 
 an oath ; and of compurgators, who freed accused persons from 
 charges of guilt by an oath in their favor. In such cases the re- 
 ference plainly is to acquittal from charges, not to an actual puri- 
 fication of the heart. The same idiom exists in the Latin words 
 lavo, purgo — as lavare, or purgare peccatum — to give or to obtain 
 pardon for sins. Thus, " venis precibus lautum peccatum" — you 
 come to obtain by prayers the forgiveness of your sins. Literal- 
 ly, you come by prayers to wash, purify, or purge, your sin. 
 
 For these reasons I shall not hesitate, in translating the sacri- 
 ficial sense of xa6a^i^u and ^a-TrTi^w, to use as equivalents the 
 words purify, purge, wash, absolve, expiate, atone for, clear, ac- 
 quit, forgive, &c., as the case may require. 
 
 The most striking case of absolution by sprinkling in the word 
 of God is undoubtedly that in which the Israelites were saved by 
 the sprinkling of the blood of the Paschal Lamb on their door 
 posts. It was established to commemorate the redemption out of 
 Egypt, and was the great type of atonement by the sprinkling of 
 the blood of Jesus Christ, the Lamb of God who taketh away the 
 sins of the world. In Ex. xii. 21-28, Moses directs as to the 
 sprinkling of the blood with a bunch of hyssop, and says, when 
 the Lord seeth the blood upon the lintel and on the two side 
 posts, the Lord will pass over the door, and will not suffer the de- 
 stroyer to come into your houses to smite you. And ye shall ob- 
 serve this thing for an ordinance for ever. This is the only case 
 
162 EXPIATION BY SPRINKLING, CALLED BAPTISM. § 53. 
 
 of sprinkling the blood of a lamb by hyssop in the Old Testa- 
 ment, and in this case there was no bathing, washing, or immer- 
 sion, as some allege in the case of sprinkling the ashes of a heifer 
 by hyssop. I am so particular on this case, because Ambrose 
 speaks of it directly as a baptism under the law. Much contro- 
 versy has existed as to what the divers baptisms were of which 
 Paul speaks. Of these Ambrose regards the sprinkling of the 
 blood of a lamb with a bunch of hyssop as one, — vol. ii. p. 333. 
 Paris, 1609. Speaking to the baptized, he says, " Ye received 
 white garments that they might be an indication that ye have laid 
 aside the garments of sin, and put on the chaste robes of inno- 
 cence, concerning which the prophet said, thou shalt sprinkle me 
 with hyssop and I shall be cleansed. Thou shalt wash me, and 1 
 shall be whiter than snow." Adsperges me hyssopo et munda- 
 bor ; lavabis me et supra nivem dealbabor. Qui enim hapUzatur, 
 et secundum legem, et secundum evangelium videtur esse mun- 
 datus. Secundum legem quia hyssopi fasciculo Moyses adsper- 
 gebat sanguinem agni ; secundum evang. etc. " For, he who is 
 baptized, both according to the law and according to the gospel, is 
 made clean. According to the law, because Moses, with a bunch 
 of hyssop, sprinkled the blood of a lamb. According to the gos- 
 pel," &c. Here his main position is that baptized persons are 
 7nade clean, both according to the law and according to the gospel. 
 Of course there were baptized j^ersons under the law. Of these 
 baptized persons Ambrose gives one example, to prove his main 
 position. Who were they ? This is the point. Were they per- 
 sons immersed ? or were they persons purified, i. e. expiated by 
 the sprinkling of blood 1 Plainly the latter ; for he refers to a 
 case in which there was nothing but purification, i. e. expiation, 
 by sprinkling the blood of a lamb, and he does not even allude to 
 immersion at all ; and from these facts he proves that baptized per- 
 sons were made clean. All this is plain, and forcible, and logi- 
 cal, if baptize means to purify, i. e. to expiate ; on any other 
 supposition it is of no force at all. For suppose that Moses did 
 sprinkle the blood of a lamb on the posts of the doors, and suppose 
 
§ 53. EXPIATION BY SPRINKLING, CALLED BAPTIS3I. 163 
 
 that it did make expiation, and thus purify the people and make 
 them clean, it only proves that expiated persons were made clean ; 
 biit how does it prove that ijnmersed persons were made clean ac- 
 cording to the law ? It does not, it cannot — and thus the sense 
 immerse is excluded, and no sense but purify or expiate is possi- 
 ble. This, then, is the sense of the passage : " He who is expiat- 
 ed (or absolved) is made clean, both according to the law, and ac- 
 cording to the gospel. According to the law, because Moses, in 
 order to make expiation, took a bunch of hyssop and sprinkled the 
 blood of a lamb, and according to the prophet, this makes clean (ad- 
 sperges me hyssopo et mundabor) ; according to the gospel, be- 
 cause he is made whiter than snow whose sins are forgiven.''' Su- 
 pra nivem dealbatur cui culpa dimittitur. How clearly then does 
 this passage exclude immersion as the meaning of baptism, and 
 establish purification, or the remission of sins, as its religious 
 sense. Tiie same sense we shall soon see in the formal defini- 
 tions of Athanasius, Zonaras, and Phavorinus. It is seen no less 
 plainly in another passage of Ambrose : " Unde sit haptisma nisi 
 de cruce Christi, de morte Christi ?" vol. i. p. 356. " Whence 
 is remission of sins, except from the cross of Christ, from the death 
 of Christ ?" " Ibi est omne mysterium, quia pro te passus est. 
 In ipso redemeris, in ipso salvaberis." " There is all the mystery, 
 because he suffered for thee. In him thou shalt be redeemed ; in 
 him thou shalt be saved." How beautifully all of this applies to 
 the remission of sins. It is the remission of sins, it is not immer- 
 sion, that comes from the cross and death of Christ. Hence, we 
 need not wonder to hear him speak of expiation by the sprink- 
 ling of the blood of the paschal lamb as a baptism, for it was a 
 remission of sins ; and the sprinkling of the blood of the paschal 
 lamb was the great type of ihe sprinking of the blood of the Lamb 
 of God who taketh away the sins of the world. Here then, be- 
 yond all doubt, expiation by sprinkling is considered as a baptism 
 under the law, and is one of the Sia(po^oi ^aitrid [t^oi spoken of by 
 Paul in Heb. ix. 10. 
 
 Nor is this the only case. Cyril of Alexandria, on Isa. iv. 4, 
 vol. ii. Paris, 1538, speaks of the sprinkling of the ashes of a 
 
164 EXPIATION BY SPRINKLING, CALLED BAPTISM. § 53. 
 
 heifer as a baptism. He is denying the power of mere external 
 rites to purify the soul, and says, f3s(3a<ffr'Kiii.s&a i^iv yd^ ovx iv 
 vSari /ufjLvw, dXX' ouJs (f-n'oSc,) (JajxaXswj — dXX' iv ctvSuiJ.aTi cc/'kaJ xai 
 -jru^i. " We have been baptized not with mere water, nor yet 
 with the ashes of a heifer, but with the Holy Spirit and fire.'"' 
 This implies that externally there was a baptism by water ; and 
 therefore, just as clearly, that there was an external baptism by 
 the ashes of a heifer. What was this ? Let Paul answer : "The 
 ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the imrify- 
 ing of thejlesh.''' If any one should say there was a rite of 
 washing or bathing connected with sprinkling ; I answer — 
 Cyril, in a parenthetic explanation after ^afj^ocXswj, evolves his 
 own meaning too clearly to admit of denial — s^^avr/rffxs^a 6c <^oj 
 /xo'vrjv Trig doL^xlg xa^a^orrira xa&u cpridiv 6 ^Mxa^iog JlaCXo^. " We are 
 sprinkled to purify the flesh alone, as says the blessed Paul." From 
 this it is plain that the word ^aitTi^cjj is here limited to the sprink- 
 ling of the unclean person by the ashes of a heifer. And no reference 
 is made to any rite of washing or bathing, even if one existed. 
 
 According to Cyril then, the sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer 
 was an external baptism, but it did not effect real and spiritual pu- 
 rification, any more than a mere washing in water. The sprink- 
 ling of an unclean person with the ashes of a heifer was, there- 
 fore, another of the SioLcpo^oi (Bairr'KJi^oi of which Paul speaks. 
 
 The same Cyril, on Isa. i. 16, " wash you, make you clean," 
 considers it as a command to baptize, and says, rouro xai 6 itaXm 
 vojxo^ a.\)T(j\g wj sv dxlaig ^istu-ttou, s(p'o yd^, Num. viii. 6, 7. " This 
 the ancient law imaged forth to them as in shadows, for he said, 
 Take the Levites and cleanse them, and thus shalt thou do 
 unto them to cleanse them : sprinkle water of purfying on 
 them," &c. There is no immersion or bathing here. But 
 sprinkling alone, sl^a itoiov IVi to vSu^ rov d^vjcr|uiou SiSol^bi Xsyojv 6 
 <fo(pu)raros UoLvXcg, Heb. ix. 13, 14. " What the water of purifi- 
 cation is, the most wise Paul shall teach, saying : the ashes of a 
 heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of the 
 flesh." In this Cyril saw baptism imaged forth as in a shadow ; 
 and this passage throws light on the preceding, and shows that in 
 
§ 53. EXPIATION BY SPRINKLING, CALLED BAPTISM. 165 
 
 all the various sprinklings of the old law, he saw some of the 
 ^mcpopoj ^aifTK^ixoi, of which Paul speaks. 
 
 Nor is this all. Tertullian speaks of the sprinklings and expi- 
 ations of the heathen world, as the Devil's baptism, rivalling the 
 ordinances of God. (De Baptismo, p. 257. Paris, 1634.) He 
 first unfolds the purifying power of water (as we have seen he 
 calls it a baptism on this ground), and then the various uses made 
 of it by the Gentile world. " At the sacred rites of Isis, or Mithra, 
 they are initiated by a washing [lavacro] ; they carry out their 
 gods with washings [lavationibus] ; they expiate villas, houses, 
 temples, and whole cities, by sprinkling with water carried around. 
 Certainly they are purified [tinguntur] in the Apollinarian and 
 Eleusinian rites, and they say that they do this to obtain regene- 
 ration, and to escape the punishment of their perjuries. Also 
 among the ancients, whoever had stained himself with murder, 
 expiated himself with purifying water. In view of these things 
 we see the zeal of the devil in rivalling the things of God, since 
 he also practises baptism among his own people — [cum et ipse 
 baptismum in suis exercet.] What can be found like this ? The 
 polluted one purifies [immundus emundat]. The destroyer de- 
 livers. He who is under condemnation, absolves others [damnatus 
 absolvit]. He will destroy, forsooth, his own work, washing 
 away the sins which he inspires." 
 
 Tertullian here traces the purifier water through all its uses in 
 the heathen world in purifying, whether by sprinkling, or in any 
 other way, for absolution, or for cleansing. And he sums it all 
 up as the Devil's baptism. Words denoting sprinkling, or pu- 
 rification, or absolution, pervade the whole passage — as lavacrum, 
 lavatio, aspergo, purgo, expio, abluo, emundo, absolvo, diluo. But 
 no word occurs denoting of necessity immersion. Dr. Carson may 
 refer to tingo. I know that he has said in his work on baptism, 
 p. 55, " Tingo expresses appropriately dipping and dyeing, and 
 these only." Dr. Carson says this with his usual accuracy. 
 Ovid was of a difierent opinion. Speaking of the ocean in a storm, 
 he says, "videturaspergine tingere nubes." — Metamorph. xi. 497, 
 
166 EXPIATION BY SPRINKLING, CALLED BAPTISM. § 53. 
 
 498. Did Ovid mean that " the ocean seems to dye the clouds 
 with spray," or " to immerse them with spray ?" He means plain- 
 ly "to sprinkle them with spray." He also uses the expression, 
 "tingere corpus aqua sparsa." (Fast. iv. 790. See Gesner on 
 tingo.) Does this mean " to color or to immerse the body by sprin- 
 kled water ?" And what mean the common expressions, tingi nar- 
 do, tingi Pallade, tingi oleo ? Is oil a coloring substance ? or was it 
 customary to be dipped in oil 1 We read of anointing with oil, or of 
 pouring oil on the head. Who has recorded the custom of dipping 
 in oil ? Hilarius too, on Acts xix. 4, speaking of a spurious bap- 
 tism, says, " non tincti sed sordidati sunt." Here the antithesis de- 
 mands of us to translate, " they were not purified but polluted.^' 
 Tingo, then, means to sprinkle, to wet or moisten, to wash, to pu- 
 rify — and in reference to baptism, this last is its appropriate sense. 
 No word, then, occurs, denoting immersion. All kinds of purifi- 
 cation and expiation are spoken of, including prominently those 
 by sprinkling, and all are summed up as the Devil's baptism, i.e. 
 the Devil's purification or absolution — and the closing contrast 
 rests for all its force on assigning to the word this sense. 
 
 Nor was this idea of the Devil's baptism rivalling God's, pe- 
 culiar to Tertullian. It is found also in Justin Martyr and Am- 
 brose. After describing Christian baptism, Justin says, xai to 
 XouT^ov 5ri toCit' d,xou(fa\rsg o\ Saiiiovsg Siol tov ir^ocprjrov xsx'/)^uy/x£vov 
 
 " The daemons hearing of this washing, or purification, proclaimed 
 by the prophet, caused those entering into their temples to sprinkle 
 themselves." He then mentions that they also used an entire 
 washing of the body in certain cases. If the daemons aimed to 
 rival God's purification, they would naturally use sprinkling as 
 well as bathing, for the Jews used both. But if they were merely 
 trying to imitate God's immersion, why did they use sprinkling 
 at all ? Clemens Alexandrinus, as we have seen, takes the 
 washing of hands by Telemachus and the Jews, as a baptism. 
 And Justin as plainly regards sprinkling as part of the Devil's 
 baptism. 
 
§ 53. EXPIATION BY SPRINKLING, CALLED BAPTISM. 167 
 
 Ambrose, taking a general view of Jewish and Heathen abso- 
 lutions, thus sums up the whole matter — vol. ii. p. 355. 
 
 Multa sunt genera baptismatum — sed unum baptisma clamat 
 Apostolus. Quare ? Sunt baptismata gentium, sed non sunt 
 baptismata. Lavacra sunt, baptismata esse non possunt. Caro 
 lavatur, non culpa diluitur, immo in illo lavacro contrahitur. 
 Erant autem baptismata Judseorum, alia superflua, alia in figura." 
 In order to translate this passage, we must notice that it is a con- 
 trast of ineffectual purifications with real purifications, i. e. re- 
 missions of sins. I translate it thus : 
 
 " There are many kinds of purifications ; but the Apostle pro- 
 claims one purification. Why ? There are purifications of the 
 nations, but they are not purifications (i. e. remissions of sin). 
 Washings they are — purifications (i. e. remissions of sin) they 
 cannot be. The body is washed, but sin is not washed away, 
 nay, in that washing sin is contracted. There were also purifi- 
 cations of the Jews : some superfluous, others typical." Any one 
 can see that the sefise of this whole passage turns on assigning to 
 baptismata in the second member of the antithesis, the sacrificial 
 sense of xa&a^Kffxog, i. e. absolution, or forgiveness of sins. The 
 purifications of the Gentiles were not purifications for this reason ; 
 they did not wash away sins. This is a good reason for denying 
 to them the name purification in its highest sense. But it is no 
 reason for denying that they were immersions. They could be 
 immersions, whether they remitted sins or not — but they could 
 not be real purifications unless they remitted sins. If any one 
 wishes to feel the full force of this, let him try to translate the 
 passage, and use immersions instead of purifications. 
 
 " They are immersions, but immersions they cannot be," Why 
 not? " They are washings, immersions they cannot be." Why 
 not ? " The body is washed, but sin is not washed away ; nay, 
 in that washing it is contracted." But how does this prove that 
 they are not immersions ? It proves that they are not purifica- 
 tions. With immersions it has nothing to do. The sense purify 
 is then fully and incontrovertibly established. 
 
168 PASSAGE FROM PROCLUS. § 54. 
 
 § 54. Passage from Proclus. 
 
 Let us now look at a beautiful passage in Proclus, which pre- 
 sents this import of the word to the mind in various relations, and 
 with the clearness of a sunbeam — p. 280. Rome, 1630. It is 
 in an oration on the Epiphany, and is an expansion of the ideas 
 contained in the reply of John to Christ : " I have need to be bap- 
 tized of thee, and comest thou to me ?" In expanding this ques- 
 tion, the Fathers took great delight, and their expansion always 
 turned on the idea, how can the polluted purify the pure ? How 
 can one, under condemnation, acquit his judge ? 'ttoj^ ToXjXTjtfw 
 (SuitTicfai (fs ; "TToTS <n'uP vito 'XP^'^o^ xaScti^srai ; 'Xors 'n'rj'kog crXuvsj 
 if'^'yrjv ; m'Cdg /Sa-rTTiVw rov x^iri^v 6 vitsC&vvos ^ 'ffCJs (Bairr'Ktu (fs 6s(f- 
 itoTo. ; jmojjxov ou /SXsVw £v tfoj. ryj xara^a rov ^Ada^ (j\)')(^ U'n'sViitfa^, 
 (Xjxa^Ti'av oux zifo'yf\(iag. Tluig (Sadradzi y) yy] o^wrfa rov tou^ ayys- 
 Xouj ayia^ovra, Wo dv^^o^itou afxa^TwXou l3ci'n'Ti^6ii.svov ; 'n'wg (fs 
 I3a<}fri(fu BidiroTOi, ToXg sx ysvi(fsus jaoXutfjxor^ ou '7r'^oo'o|UL»X>jfl'avTa ; 
 irQg ouv s^w xara^^vrrog av&^Cjjm'og a^vtVw &s6v fl Gsov dvajuoapri^Tov ; 
 l3a'jtrKfr^v d<iti(fTSi\ag (JsV-n'ora, ou -^ra^^jKoutfaj rov tfou ii^o(fTky[kaTog. 
 I have abbreviated this passage somewhat, and yet, because of its 
 beauty, and varied use of language, have retained more than I 
 usually quote. Its main force lies in the expression, how shall 
 I, who am under sentence of condemnation, purify, i. e. acquit 
 my judge ? -rfw^ /Sa-TrTiVw tov x^jti^v 6 h'Jtsv&xjvog, How absurd, in 
 such a passage, to inquire, how shall I, a culprit, immerse my 
 judge ? But take /^a-TrTjVw in the sense purify, or acquit, and it 
 at once harmonizes the whole passage. Nor is this all; the laws 
 of antithesis demand this sense. Let us thus translate it. " How 
 shall I dare to purify thee ? When is the fire purified by the 
 stubble ? When does the clay wash the fountain ? How shall 
 I, a culprit, purify (or acquit) my judge ? How shall I purify 
 thee, O Lord ? . I see no fault in thee. Thou hast not fallen 
 under the curse of Adam : thou hast committed no sin. How 
 will the earth endure to see him, who makes pure the angels, 
 purified by a sinful man ? How shall I purify thee, O Lord, 
 
§ 54. PASSAGE FROM PROCLUS. 169 
 
 who hast never participated in the pollutions of birth ? How, then, 
 shall I, a polluted man, purify God ? The sinless God ? Thou 
 hast sent me as a purifier, hast thou not disregarded thine own 
 command ?" On this last sentence, the editor says : the sense is, 
 as I infer, thou hast made me a purifier, that I should baptize, 
 that is, purify, from pollution, and expiate those defiled by sin. 
 But since thou art polluted by no sins, why dost thou command 
 that I should expiate and wash thee, if there is nothing in thee to 
 be washed away ? That is beyond the province of a baptist, i. e. 
 a purifier. I have need to be purified of thee. The interchange 
 of a^v/cTw and (Baitrldu) in carrying out the antithesis is no less 
 striking. He uses itOig /Da'TTTiVoj till near the close, and then ex- 
 changes it in the question for a^vjVw — ttwj a^vjVw @sov ; how shall 
 I purify God — the sinless God. Yet, who does not see that the 
 import of the question must be the same throughout the whole 
 passage ? So the antithesis tov a^ia^ovra dyyiXovg (oairnt^oixsvov 
 Ctto (xv^^c^Wou aiJMPTuiXov, requires /Sa'rri^w and ayia^(^j to be taken 
 in the same sense. This passage admirably illustrates the state- 
 ments in § 28, 2. Giving lo /Sa-Trri'^w the sense to purify, the 
 passage is inimitably beautiful and brilliant. It loses all its 
 beauty the moment we assign to it any other sense. 
 
 Have I not adduced evidence enough ? In any common case 
 it would be enough, and more than enough. But strange as it 
 may seem, the life of a whole denomination depends upon denying 
 this sense of this word. Dr. Carson says, if it were optional, he 
 would never immerse. So says Mr. Hague. And if this mean- 
 ing is established, all pretext for a separate Bible Society is 
 taken away. Nor will any valid reason for separate organic 
 action remain. So fundamental an error will not easily die. It 
 has, indeed, no logical life ; but it has an organic life of tremen- 
 dous power. In numerous periodicals this denomination utters 
 its voice. Hundreds of thousands hang on them for the truth ; 
 and if they see it not in them, will not see it at all. They are 
 the leaders. It is expected of them to defend the cause. And 
 temptations, almost infinite, urge them not to see the truth. Be- 
 
 8 
 
170 DEFINITIONS OF BAIITIZQ AND BAIITISMA. § 55. 
 
 fore such temptations, they will fall, unless God, in his mercy, 
 aid them by a full illumination of his Spirit. So may it be. 
 But as things are, the work of adducing evidence must still go 
 on. 
 
 § 55. Definitions of (Bam'T't^u and l36i'n:"TKfixa. 
 
 T remark, then, that the sense to purify is established by direct 
 definitions of the Fathers, and of Greek Lexicographers, given in 
 a manner most explicit and unambiguous. 
 
 On this point I shall first quote Basil. He is commenting on 
 Is. iv. 4. " O-rj sx-TrXuvsr jcj^jo^ tov ^vifov tCjv uIwv xa/ rojv ^uya-rs^wv 
 2jojv, xai TO aifxa ' Is^outfaXTj.a ixxadapisT sx (xs'tfou ccu-rwv sv -TrvsufxaTj 
 x^itfsoj^ xai sv 'jrvsjiiuTi xavcfsug. " The Lord shall wash away the 
 filth of the sons and the daughters of Zion, and shall purge the 
 blood of Jerusalem from the midst of them, by the spirit of judg- 
 ment, and by the spirit of burning." On this he remarks, T^a- 
 vCJg TO, dvra roj ' Iwavvrj o Xoyog 'Tf^oayo^svsi ifs^l toC xu^iou Xiyovri oVi 
 avTog vixoig l^cLiirldzi iv toj ifvsjfjMri a^j'w xai Tfv^i • irspt 8s solvtov on 
 iyC) fxsv v^ias fdairri^o sv vSan slg jasravoiav. " Plainly the word 
 foretells the same things concerning the Lord, by John, who says, 
 that he shall baptize you by the Holy Spirit and fire ; but, 
 concerning himself, he says, I, indeed, baptize you with water 
 unto repentance." In one series of expressions, the words are, 
 •TrXuvw and ixxa^a^i^u — in the other, fzaitri^cj^. Basil says that 
 the import of both modes of expression is plainly the same. Nor 
 is this all. He proceeds, s-tts/ yovv djx^oTS^a tfuv/jsj-'Sv o xu^iog to ts 
 £| vbarog slg y.s-ra.voiav, xal to sx itvcuiiarog Pig dvu'ysvvri(fi'j, xai o Xo'^'oj 
 drnddSTcii afxqjoTSf'a to, /SarTjcffji-aTa iiTj'n'ors r^slg sldiv a] iirivoiai rov 
 (SaifriffixuTog. " Since, then, the Lord has connected both (bap- 
 tisms), namely, that from water to repentance, i. e. John's, and 
 that from the Spirit to regeneration, i. e. Christ's, and the word 
 (Is. iv. 4) alludes to both baptisms (i. e. Christian baptism, and 
 that of fire), are there not three significations of baptism ?" 
 Here he first speaks of baptisms in the plural (i. e. the baptisms 
 of John, of Christ, and of fire), and as, in some respects, alike, in 
 
§ 55. DEFINITIONS OF BAIITIZO AND BAHTISMA. 171 
 
 others unlike ; and this seems to call for a definition of the senses 
 of the word. He says they are three, and proceeds to give them. 
 (1) 0, TS Tov ^■j'n'ov xa^a^id^hg (2) xa/ t) ^io, tou irvsCp^arog ava^sw^itfi^ 
 (3) xai 7] sv Tw -Tfu^/ x^iVsw^ /Satfavoj. 1. Purification from filth. 
 2. Regeneration by the Spirit. 3. Trial or proof in the fire of 
 the judgment. These are three kinds of purification. One, ex- 
 ternal by water — the next, internal by the Spirit, i. e. regenera- 
 tion — the other, a purgation in the fires of the judgment day. To 
 this purgation by fire, the Fathers referred the words of Paul : 
 " Ever}'^ man's work shall be made manifest, for the day shall 
 declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire ; and the fire shall 
 try every man's work, of what sort it is ; if any man's work 
 shall be burned, he shall sufier loss ; but he himself shall be 
 saved, yet so as by fire." The man saved by fire, is saved by 
 Basil's third kind of purification. Concerning this, Hilarius says, 
 ^^ per ignem purgatus fiat salvus," being purified by fire, he may be 
 saved. Hence, Basil refers a part of the purification to this 
 world, and a part to the next, but considers it all as baptism in 
 one way or another, wtfrs to julsv ixitXvvsiv 'n'^og ro^v Cods dit6&s(fiv TYjg 
 afxa^Tja^ Xajx/3avscfdai, to Ss itvEv^y^aTi x^icfsug xai T^vsvii^uTi xa6(fsug 
 'Jf^og T-rfi sv TW fjLs'XXovTj a/wvi (Jia, TOU -Tru^oj (^oxii^arfiav. " So that 
 the expression to wash away (in Is. iv. 4) refers to the laying 
 aside sins in this world (by Christian baptism), but the expression, 
 spirit of judgment and spirit of burning, refers to trial by fire in 
 the world to come." How unlike all this is to immersion, I need 
 not say. Can anything be more to the point ? Is it not enough 
 to say, that to wash away filth, and to purge, in Is., and to bap- 
 tize in the New Testament, are equivalent modes of expression ? 
 Is it not enough that he uses sx after (oaitrKfixa, a preposition at 
 war with the idea immerse ? For we are not immersed s^ v6a. 
 Tog, but 5v vdari — but we are purified i^ vSarog xai ix m'vsoij.arog, sx 
 denoting that from which the purification proceeds, and by which 
 it is produced. Is it not enough, that he speaks of baptisms in 
 the plural, and refers two to this world, and one to the next, and 
 then goes on to define three corresponding senses of the word, and 
 
172 DEFINITIONS OF BAIITIZS^ AND BAXITISMA. § 55. 
 
 that each sense is a purification, and neither an immersion ? 
 What more could be asked, or received, if asked ? Surely he 
 who will not believe this, would not believe, even though old Basil 
 himself were to arise from the dead, and proclaim on the house 
 tops, the meaning of (Boiitri^u) is to purify ! 
 
 Nor is this all. Athanasius testifies explicitly to the same 
 effect. Speaking of the expression : " he shall baptize you with 
 the Holy Spirit," he expressly states that it has the sacrificial 
 sense to purify, i. e. to remit sins. — Montfaucon, Collectio nova 
 Patrum Grsecorum. Vol. 2, p. 27. Paris, 1706 — and to express 
 this sense, he uses xa^a^j'^w. His words are : To auTo^ v^J^ois 
 /^aTTTiVsj sv -Trvtu/xarj ay/w, rovro StiXoT oVi xa&a^^sT vixag. " The 
 expression, he shall baptize you with the Holy Spirit, means this, 
 that he shall purify, i. e. absolve you, or remit your sins." 
 That this is the sense is plain, for he adds, SiSl to jxqi 6vva(fdai 
 TO TQv 'Iwavvou /3a.-7r'Tio'|xa tovto m'oirjffai, dXXdt to tou X^io'tou 6j xoci 
 dcpisvoLi (xjxa^Tia^ s^ourfjav s;)^si. ''Because the purification of John 
 could not do this, but that of Christ, who has power to forgive sins." 
 This last expression fixes the sense of xa&a^isT, and thus the sense 
 of /Sa'TTTiVsj, to remission of sins, or sacramental purification. 
 Athanasius, therefore, directly testifies, that this is the sense. 
 Let us hear no more, then, of immersion in the Holy Spirit. 
 Athanasius declares, that purification by the Holy Spirit is the 
 sense. 
 
 Once more the lexicographers. Zonaras and Phavorinus define 
 /3(X'7rTi(J'(xa thus, on^zd^g afxa^Tjwv dC vdarog xal "TrvsjfxaTO^ — t] avsx- 
 XoyirfTof a(pS(fig ajxa^TJOJV — rj Xvcfis <5's(7'^oG' sx (piXa)j§p(jj7tiag (5's^opy],asvy]. 
 " The remission of sins by water and the Spirit — the unspeakable 
 forgiveness of sins — the loosing of the bond (i. e. of sin), granted 
 by the love of God towards man." These are obviously all equiva- 
 lents of sacrificial purification, i. e. remission of sins. They 
 would be perfect definitions of xa^a^itf/xo^.* Are not two words 
 synonymous to which the same definitions can be truly given ? 
 
 * See the passage from Ambrose § 53, at the end. 
 
§ 55. DEFINITIONS OF BAIITIZfi AND BAIITISMA. 173 
 
 These definitions are not the mere opinions of Zonaras and Pha- 
 yorinus. They are taken from the ideas of the Fathers, and 
 nearly in their words. They also give definitions of the moral 
 sense of l3a<n'Ti(f^M, i. e. moral purification — thus, *; kxovcfiog 
 (fwrayrj if^hg rov 0£ov OeUTs'^ou /b'l'ou, '/j avuXxidig {avaik.'f\-]^ig in Phavo- 
 rinus) •\'^'xrtg zrd to x^skrov. " The voluntary arrangement of a 
 new life towards God, or according to the will of God. The re- 
 leasing, or recovery of the soul (i. e. from sin), for that which is 
 better, i. e. holiness." 
 
 All this certainly denotes moral purification, or the restoration 
 of the soul to a new and holy life. It is equivalent to Basil's 
 second sense, dva.j'svvYj(fig. These last definitions would be perfect 
 definitions of xa&a.^idixog, as denoting moral purification. Again, 
 I ask : Are not two words synonymous to which the same defini- 
 tions can be truly given 1 Nor are these last definitions the mere 
 opinions of Zonaras and Phavorinus. As before, they are taken 
 from the Fathers, and are given in their phraseology and style. 
 Is there no evidence in all this 1 Is it nothing that two lexico- 
 graphers, writing in Greek, define (BaitridiLOi thus, and say nothing 
 of immersion ? Does this look as if immersion is the very es- 
 sence of baptism, as some assert ? Why is all this 1 The reason 
 is obvious : they were giving the ecclesiastical, the religious sense 
 of the word, and in so doing they could give nothing else. But 
 who was Zonaras, and what the value of his lexicon ? He was 
 one of the four leading Byzantine historians. He wrote annals 
 from the beginning of the world down to 1118. Also a commen- 
 tary on the apostolic canons, decrees of councils, etc. He was 
 first a courtier in the court of Alexius Comnenus, then a monk on 
 Mount Athos. Of his history Tittman says, it is not surpassed by 
 that of any Byzantine writer. Of his lexicon : " I consider it, 
 after that of Hesychius, the most learned of all others that survive, 
 the most copious and most accurate ; so that by it we can correct 
 and confirm Suidas, the author of the Etymologium, and others, 
 and even Hesychius himself. Finally, it is invaluable for illus- 
 trating passages of authors — some before published, others pre- 
 
174 PROOF FROM THE USE OF PREPOSITIONS. § 56. 
 
 served in him alone." The question is not as to the taste and 
 rhetorical excellence of Zonaras. It is this : Did not a historian 
 who wrote in Greek, and was perfectly familiar with the writings 
 of the Greek Fathers, and who wrote commentaries in Greek on 
 the apostolic canons, did not he know what ^aitrid^a means ? And 
 yet of immersion he says nothing ; every definition is an equiva- 
 lent of xa^a^jtfixoj. Docs Dr. Carson say he is defining the nature 
 of the rite, and not its name ? I reply : the definition of 
 Basil is not a definition of the nature of one external rite, i. e. 
 the rite of Christian baptism. He is speaking of three bap- 
 tisms, that of John, that of Christ by the Holy Spirit, and 
 that of fire, at the judgment day. He cannot, therefore, be 
 defining merely the nature of one rite. Besides, the rite of 
 Christian baptism does not import trial in the fires of the 
 judgment day. Baptism by water does not import baptism 
 by fire. It is the word, therefore, and the word alone that 
 Basil defines. Nor is the definition accidental, but deliberate and 
 formal. He fixes his eye fully and intently upon the point. He 
 brings up three cases in which the word is used. Purification is 
 common to them all — purification by water, by the Spirit, by fire. 
 There is a generic likeness but a specific difTerence, and so he 
 defines: 1. Natural purification from filth — 6 <rou pu-Trou xa^apjtfjxoV. 
 2. Spiritual purification, i. e. regeneration, t] Sia tov 'irvsuixarog 
 ava^s'vviio'jj. 3. Purgation by trial by fire, rj i\i tu> Trvpi xei(fsug 
 (Batfuvos. It hence follows that the name and the nature of bap- 
 tism coincide, in import. Both denote purification. 
 
 § 56. Proof from the use of Prepositions. 
 
 But, as if to exclude all doubt, the prepositions that often follow 
 (SaitrKf}xa in patristic usage, require the sense purification, and 
 exclude the sense immersion. They are Siol, sx, d'K'6, and in Latin, 
 per. We find jok'TtTiditM Sia itvpos, dia, Saxpvuv, Sia ju-apTupjou, ^i' ai'jm-a- 
 Tos, Si' u^otTo^. Purification by fire, by tears, by martyrdom, by 
 blood, by water. Not immersion in fire, in tears, in martyrdom, 
 
§ 57. ARGUMENT CUMULATIVE. 175 
 
 in blood, in water. We find /So.'rrKT'fxa cI-tto or ix <vJj(xaToc, or 
 v5arog, or 'Trupoj, purification from or by the Spirit, or water, or 
 fire. Not immersion in tlie Spirit, or water, or fire. So we 
 find baptisma per aquam, purification by water — not immer- 
 sion in it. In making these remarks, I have my eye on nu- 
 merous passages which, did my limits permit, I would gladly 
 adduce. But the idiom, I think, no one will dare to dispute ; 
 but one beautiful illustration of it I will give from a translation, 
 in a commentary of Hilarius. He is commenting on 1 Cor. x. 1, 
 s/b'tt'TTiVavTo £v r>5 vsxsK'p xal sv Tjj &a\(i(f<j'p, and says, " their past 
 sins were not imputed to them, but being purified by the cloud and 
 hy the sea, they were prepared to receive the law.'' " Non enim 
 illis preterita mala imputata sunt, sed per mare eXper nubem pwn- 
 Jicati, prseparati sunt ad legem accipiendam." Comment is need- 
 less. Who does not see that with him /Da'Trrl^w means to purify 
 in the sacrificial sense, i. e. to remit sins ? Hence, he says their 
 sins were not imputed to them, but they were purified by the cloud 
 and the sea. 
 
 § 57. Argument cumulative. 
 
 Any one of the cases I have adduced is decisive ; but taking 
 them as a cumulative argument, their force is irresistible. But 
 the force of no one argument is greater than of that which is de- 
 rived from the usages of language as to clinic baptism. Dr. 
 Carson at least ought to feel this. He says that we may as well 
 call black white as to call sprinkling or pouring immersion ; and 
 yet, a man not immersed, but only purified by affusion, is ex- 
 pressly said to have been baptized upon his bed on which he lay. 
 Nor was this an unfrequent case. Hilarius says, on 1 Tim. iii. 
 12, 13 — " non desunt qui prope quotidie baptizentur scgri." 
 <* There are not wanting, almost daily, sick persons who are to 
 be baptized." Emperors were purified in this way. And yet, 
 in formal histories in the Greek tongue, it is announced that they 
 were baptized. Constantius, d-TToc^vTjtfxwv e^o^s /Sa-TrTi^stf^ai, " dying, 
 thoui^ht fit to be baptized." Theodosius the Great was thus 
 
176 ARGUMENT CUMULATIVE. § 57. 
 
 baptized by Ambrose, in his last sickness. Basil says that they were 
 so baptized when they could neither speak, nor stand, nor confess 
 their sins ; and when those present could not tell whether thejt 
 knew what was done to them or not. Gregory Nyss. calls it 
 £v7a(T)iov (BoL'^lKfixa — sepulchral baptism. In circumstances so 
 entirely excluding all thought of immersion, yea, when it is ex- 
 pressly stated that they were not immersed, but that the rite was 
 performed by affusion, it is said they were baptized. Did the 
 Greeks proclaim a falsehood in their own tongue ? Did they 
 declare before heaven and earth that a man was immersed, when 
 every man, woman, and child knew that he was not ? Yea, did 
 they declare it, when out of their own mouths they could be con- 
 victed of falsehood, for they themselves declared that he was not ? 
 How would it sound in English to say that a man was immersed 
 by affusion or sprinkling 1 And would it sound any better in 
 Greek ? See § 28, Nos. 5, and 15. 
 
 But take the other view, and all is harmonious at once. A 
 man sprinkled on his bed, was purified on his bed on which he 
 lay. The sprinkling of water, or of blood, did purify. Hence, 
 when Cyprian reasoned from the sprinklings of the Old Testa- 
 ment to prove that a man could be baptized, i. e. purified by 
 sprinkling, his argument was in point. But on any other sup- 
 position it was totally devoid of force. 
 
 On this ground we see at once why Clement saw, in all the 
 h'eathen purifications, an image of baptism handed doMii from 
 Moses ; and why he could say that it was a custom of the Jews 
 to be baptized often on their couches. We see why Cyril could 
 speak of baptizing with the ashes of a heifer, and Ambrose of 
 baptizing by sprinkling the blood of a lamb with hyssop ; and 
 why water and blood were called baptisms, i. e. purifying agents, 
 as before explained. VVc can see, too, why Tertullian and 
 Justin Martyr looked upon all the aspersions and expiations of 
 the heathen world as baptisms. Purifications they were. Im- 
 mersions they were not. Finally, we see why Justin Martyr 
 said : be baptized as to your soul from anger, &c., for to 
 
§ 58. DR. Carson's canons cannot weaken it. 177 
 
 purify the soul from anger, &c., agrees both with Scripture and 
 common sense. To immerse the soul from anger is at war with 
 both. 
 
 § 58. Dr. Carson'' s Canons cannot weaken it. 
 
 It would be foolish, even if it were possible, to seek to destroy 
 such a cumulative argument by trying to neutralize its parts in 
 detail, according to Dr. Carson's principles. But it cannot be 
 done. All of his canons and principles of trial are powerless 
 here. I am not trying to prove that /Sa-TrTi^w means sprinkle or 
 pour — but purify ; and therefore the first touches me not. There 
 is no room for his second canon, for my argument depends not on 
 the use of xocda^i'Jw, in place of (Saitri^u, but on the use of 
 (SairTi^c^ itself. There is no room for the third and fourth ca- 
 nons. For I do not deal in rhetorical uses of ^aitri^u but in 
 plain prosaic definitions of it, and prosaic illustrations of those 
 definitions. There is no room for his fifth canon, for there is 
 clear proof that the name and the nature of baptism coincide. 
 Wherever the Fathers see the thing purification, they give the 
 name baptism, whatever the form. I stated at the outset, that 
 by looking at the result and end of immersion in pure water, i. e. 
 purity, the word would lose its modal sense, and pass to the sense 
 to purify, irrespective of mode. And I have given most decisive 
 proof that it did so pass. And this proof is strengthened by ten 
 thousand facts on every side. I feel as though I had hardly 
 begun to adduce the proof that exists on this subject. Indeed, no 
 man can see it fully who will not leave the sultry regions of 
 modern controversy, on this subject, and enter into the patristic 
 world, till its languages, feelings, and usages rise from the dead 
 and surround him, and impress upon his mind the whole scene. 
 He will then find that the modern Baptists and the ancient 
 Fathers live in two entirely different worlds. 
 
 The position from which the inferences in § 40 have been 
 logically derived, has been established by evidence most clear 
 
 8* 
 
178 DR. Carson's canons cannot weaken it. § 58. 
 
 and unanswerable. It follows, therefore, that those inferences 
 are also established as true ; and if so, their practical bearings 
 are numerous, and momentous, and it might seem appropriate to 
 disclose them here. But though the main position has been most 
 clearly proved, yet its whole strength has not been presented, nor 
 can it be till I have considered some of Dr. Carson's attacks on 
 my former articles a little more in detail. In doing this I shall 
 have occasion to adduce still further evidence from the Fathers, so 
 various, pointed, and definite, that, in my judgment, not even a 
 pretext for doubt will remain. Having done this, I shall close 
 by a more full exhibition of the practical bearings of the results 
 at which we have arrived. It was, indeed, my intention to finish 
 the discussion in this article. But the reception of Dr. Carson's 
 violent attack, and the general interest now felt in the subject, 
 seemed to indicate the propriety, not to say necessity, of a dis- 
 cussion more thorough and extended than is consistent with the 
 limits of one article. 
 
CHAPTER II. 
 
 At the close of my last article I made the following remarks. 
 " It was my intention to finish the discussion in this article ; but 
 the reception of Dr. Carson's violent attack, and the general 
 interest now felt in the subject, seemed to indicate the propriety, 
 not to say necessity, of a discussion more thorough and extended 
 than is consistent with the limits of one article." I proceed, 
 therefore, to complete the discussion thus announced. 
 
 § 59. Reasons for a further notice of Dr. Carson. 
 
 It may perhaps be alleged by some, that it is needless to take 
 any further notice of Dr. Carson. For if his fundamental princi- 
 ples are false, as I have shown, then all that grows out of them is 
 false, and therefore there is no need of exposing his errors in 
 detaii. Besides, the spirit of his work is so bad, that it cannot 
 exert any power over a candid mind : indeed Dr. Carson has 
 completely exposed himself, and totally destroyed his own power, 
 by the manner of his reply. Besides, it is humiliating to argue 
 with an antagonist who so far forgets the laws of honorable con- 
 troversy, as to indulge in such assumptions of superior wisdom, 
 and such gross personalities, as fill his reply. Such an antago- 
 nist is more properly answered by a dignified silence. 
 
 Such things may be said, and JL freely admit with much plau- 
 sibility ; indeed such considerations have often occurred to my 
 own mind, in reading Dr. Carson's reply. 
 
 But it must be remembered that no organized body of men is 
 willing to see the truth of principles which are at war with the 
 fundamental principles on which they are organized ; and if 
 
180 KEASONS FOR A FURTHER NOTICE OF DR. CARSON. § 59. 
 
 principles which they are unwilling to see, are established, they 
 are always more desirous to overlook and forget them, than to 
 apply them, and carry them out to their ultimate results. And 
 if we would correct errors which are kept alive not by logic, but 
 by organic power, we must not only develope principles, but seek 
 from God the discretion and energy needed in order wisely and 
 efficiently to apply them. Then, by his aid, may we hope to see 
 such errors finally and thoroughly destroyed. 
 
 Moreover, the fact that a work is written in a bad spirit, is not 
 always a sufficient reason for not giving it a thorough and detail- 
 ed answer. The bad spirit of a work may operate in two ways. 
 It may either react upon the author, and destroy his power, or it 
 may infect and corrupt the body in whose behalf it was written? 
 and bring them down to its own low standard. But so strong are 
 the temptations of party spirit, and so powerful is the unsubdued 
 pride of organized bodies even of good men, that a zealous parti- 
 san, though he writes in a bad spirit, is notwithstanding ap- 
 plauded and hailed as a leader, if he seems to argue the cause of 
 the party with power. In short, organic bodies are always in 
 danger of preferring intellectual power, and the victory of their 
 own peculiar principles, to holiness and truth. And if they do, a 
 work written with intellectual power, but in a bad spirit, will 
 corrupt the whole body : like poison, it will diffuse itself through 
 the whole system. Hence, to write in a bad spirit, is the highest 
 sin M'hich a man of great intellectual power can commit, for it is 
 throwing poison most malignant into the very springs of spiritual 
 life. Nor can any one body of Christians be corrupted, without 
 endangering the spiritual life of others. For pride in one body 
 tends to beget both pride and anger in all others, and to excite 
 a spirit of bitter and maligTiant recrimination, by which the 
 Spirit of God is grieved and provoked to take his flight. 
 
 In all such cases it is our duty to seek for grace and wisdom 
 from God, not only to resist in ourselves the infection of the bad 
 spirit which is poisoning the body politic, but also to destroy its 
 malignant power, by stripping off \he garb of piety in which it 
 
§ 59. REASONS FOR A FURTHER NOTICE OF DR. CARSON. 181 
 
 seeks to veil itself, and exposing its true and pestilential nature. 
 Then, by the blessing of God, will its infectious power be des- 
 troyed by the fire of divine truth and holy abhorrence, and thus 
 will the moral nature of the community be restored to soundness, 
 and the plague be stayed. 
 
 Had any person in the Baptist denomination undertaken to do 
 this work in the case of Dr. Carson, it would have indicated a 
 moral soundness in that body which would have been cheering to 
 any holy heart. It is therefore with no small grief that I have 
 noticed the fact, that on both sides of the Atlantic, some of the 
 leading Baptist presses have bestowed on Dr. Carson's works on 
 baptism, and especially on his reply to me, absolute and un- 
 qualified praise. Nor have I ever seen or heard even a subdued 
 whisper of censure, or even a remote intimation that fully to 
 sympathize with the spirit of his works would create the least 
 danger to individuals or to the denomination. Indeed some have 
 written as if they were so thoroughly infected and pervaded by 
 that spirit, that no standard was left by which a bad spirit could 
 be detected, and no moral energy remained by which it could be 
 resisted or abhorred. 
 
 Indeed, if it were now the design of the admirers of Dr. Carson 
 on both sides of the Atlantic, to recognise and exhibit him as the 
 great leader and champion of the Baptist cause on earth, the great 
 incarnation, so to speak, of the Baptist spirit and Baptist princi- 
 ples, they could not use towards him language of higher praise 
 than they have already used. 
 
 The following piece exhibits the opinion of the Christian 
 Watchman, the leading Baptist paper in New England, in con- 
 nexion with the opinion of the London Baptist Magazine. 
 
 "discussion on BAPTISM. 
 
 " The London Baptist Magazine for May notices a late pam- 
 phlet from the pen of Alexander Carson, the celebrated Greek 
 scholar, entitled ' Baptism not Purification,' in reply to Edward 
 
182 [reasons for a further notice of dr. CARSON. § 59. 
 
 Beecher, President of Illinois College, who has undertaken to 
 show that the word baptize is synonymous with the word purify. 
 Mr. B.'s article, which was originally published in the Biblical 
 Repository, was published in a separate pamphlet in England, 
 and the reviewer, referring to this newly-received theory, says : 
 ' Dr. Carson has seized it with both his hands, divested it of 
 every particle of covering, torn it limb from limb, dissected it 
 with the minutest accuracy, and then, without the slightest token 
 of tenderness or pity, committed the fragments to the flames. If 
 its admirers who extolled it so loudly in its prosperous days, now 
 look on in silence, pronouncing no funeral panegyric, and leaving 
 its relentless destroyer unpunished, it will give the public a poor 
 opinion of the value of their friendship. We cannot follow Dr. 
 Carson through his triumphant course. He shows, to use his own 
 language, that Mr. Beecher proceeds on an axiom that is false, 
 fanatical, and subversive of all revealed truth, namely, that 
 meaning is to be assigned to words in any document, not from the 
 authority of the use of the language ascertained by acknowledged 
 examples, but from views of probability as to the thing related, 
 independently of the testimony of the word.' 
 
 '• Dr. Carson, with his vast critical resources, is the very man 
 to perform such a v/ork as this, and we have no doubt he has 
 done it thoroughly ; and, perhaps, it was needed in England, as 
 quite a flourish of trumpets was made when this new theory was 
 broached there, but it is scarcely needed in this country, for Mr. 
 Beecher's theory is a very harmless thing here. It is probable 
 that it would hardly have been noticed at all but for the respecta- 
 bility of the periodical through which it appeared." 
 
 In the preface to the American edition of his work on Baptism 
 it is stated, " No one, it is believed, has made that deep and tho- 
 rough research into the writings of the Greeks, in order to settle 
 the usus loqucndi of the words j^ccTrrw and (^wktI^u, as has Dr. 
 Carson." 
 
 In the Scottish Guardian the following character of Dr. Carson 
 is given : " As a profound and accurate thinker, an able nieta- 
 
§ 59. REASONS FOR A FURTHER NOTICE OF DR. CARSON. 183 
 
 physician, a close reasoner, a deep theologian, Dr. Carson can 
 stand the ground against any rivalship." It is also stated in the 
 papers, that in England the Baptist convention or general associa- 
 tion has requested Dr. Carson to prepare a work on the Ecclesias- 
 tical Tradition of Baptism. 
 
 Mr. Hague, also, in his reply to Messrs. Cooke and Towne, 
 speaks of Dr. Carson's acute mind in a manner adapted to convey 
 high praise entirely unmingled with censure. 
 
 I have not the least disposition to depreciate the original powers 
 of Dr. Carson. On the other hand, I think he does possess un- 
 common powers, of a certain kind. I would only remark, that 
 the greater his powers, the greater his responsibility to use them 
 aright, and the greater the danger to the Christian community if 
 he employs them to disseminate false opinions and malignant 
 emotions; and this, I am fully satisfied, he has done. 
 
 Notwithstanding, therefore, the bad spirit of his works, and the 
 extreme weakness of his arguments, I think there are sufficient 
 reasons for a further notice of his reply. Indeed, to treat it with 
 contempt is virtually to treat with contempt the Baptist denomina- 
 tion itself. 
 
 Not that I suppose that there are not in that denomination many 
 Christian brethren, whose spirit is entirely unlike Dr. Carson's, 
 and not that I hold my Baptist brethren individually responsible 
 for all that Dr. Carson has said and done ; but after all that has 
 been so publicly said by leading organs of the Baptist denomina- 
 tion, giving him a prominence as the advocate of their cause sucfi 
 as is given to no other man, and uttering no word of censure, I 
 am authorized to regard him as the leading representative and 
 expounder of Baptist principles in the present age. And he 
 plainly writes as if this were his own view of the case. 
 
 Besides this there are other reasons for still more thoroughly 
 examining Dr. Carson's grounds. He is so perfectly confident 
 of his own correctness, that his statements are made in a bold, 
 palpable, and definite form. He seems to be deterred by no fear, 
 from makincr assertions the most rash and unlimited, if they are 
 
184 DR. cakson's remarks on the patristic argubient. ^ 60. 
 
 needed to carry out his principles logically to what he deems the 
 true results. Indeed his great power as a leader lies mainly in 
 this, taken in connexion with the fact that he really does know 
 more than those whom he leads. 
 
 In his works there is a great show of learning, and as we have 
 seen he has, at least among his own denomination, the highest 
 reputation as a learned man, and his assertions are made with an 
 energy designed to be overwhelming and annihilating, and on his 
 own partisans they have certainly exerted and still exert vast 
 power. Thus it is that he carries his party with him. Now 
 although this characteristic of Dr. Carson is productive of much 
 evil, still it is not without its beneficial results ; it tends to place 
 the real points at issue in the clearest possible light, and to con- 
 centrate the whole energy of the mind on them. They become 
 focal points of illumination, and burning points of discussion. 
 
 His universal affirmations as to the use of the word (Bairli^u in 
 the whole range and history of the Greek language, we have 
 already noticed § 46 near the close. No less definite and remark- 
 able are his specific assertions as to the use of the word in the 
 Fathers. I shall proceed to notice these, and then consider more 
 in detail, his reply to my argument from Scripture, and from the 
 Fathers. 
 
 § 60. Dr. Carson^s Remarks on the ratrisiic Argument. 
 
 These relate to two points, their accurate knowledge of the 
 scriptural usus loquendi of f3a<nTi^u), and the sense in which they 
 actually understood and used it. 
 
 On the first point he states explicitly, that they could not be 
 mistaken as to the apostolic usus loquendi. His words are these : 
 p. 472, " They knew the meaning of the language which they 
 spoke." P. 473, " To suppose that persons who spoke the Greek 
 language might understand their (i. e. the apostles') words in a 
 sense diflferent from that in which they used them, would be to 
 charge the Scripture as not being a revelation. Whatever was 
 
 I 
 
§ 60. DR. carson's remarks on the patristic argument. 185 
 
 the sense of the word must have been known to all who heard 
 them or read their writings." The truth of this position I freely 
 admit. It is clear that Patristic Greek is based upon the Septua- 
 gint and the writings of the New Testament, and it is no less 
 plain that they had minutely studied everything in the Greek 
 Scriptures that seemed to have any relation to the subject of bap- 
 tism, so that nothing could be more interesting or instructive than 
 a philosophical analysis of the formation of all parts of the lan- 
 guage of the Fathers on the subject of baptism, from various 
 passages in the word of God, supposed by them to allude to it, but 
 which to us convey no such allusion. Inasmuch, therefore, as 
 the Scriptures were written in the living language of the Greek 
 Fathers, and all their idioms were by them so carefully studied, 
 there can be no doubt that they used the word in its true and 
 apostolic sense. Still further, the Latin Fathers who understood 
 and read Greek, must also have used it in the same sense ; and 
 therefore the Latin Fathers, if any such there were, who did not 
 understand the Greek well enough to judge originally and inde- 
 pendently, must also have received it in the same sense, for the 
 usus loquendi would be fixe4- by those who did understand it. 
 Still further, all writings composed in the Patristic age, and 
 ascribed to the leading Fathers, in order to gain authority by their 
 names, must have used it in the same sense, for it was their aim 
 both to be understood, and not to be detected by those for whom 
 they wrote, and of course they must., have used the word in its 
 current and usual sense. For example, though the list of seven 
 baptisms ascribed to Athangsius is probably not his, yet as it was 
 written in his age and name, it truly represents the usus loquendi 
 of that and also of preceding ages. Indeed, all of it can be 
 found in substance in the authentic works of preceding Fathers, 
 and in later days it re-appears in the authentic writings of John 
 of Damascus. So, also, whether the commentary on some of the 
 first chapters of Isaiah, found in the works of Basil, is the real 
 work of Basil, or whether it was written, as Garnier judges, by 
 
186 DR. Carson's remarks on the patristic argument. § 60. 
 
 some Cappadocian ecclesiastic in the name of Basil soon after his 
 death, and was taken chiefly from the works of Eusebius of Ce- 
 sarea and of Basil ; still, as it was written in the name of Basil, 
 and in the age of Basil, and was universally regarded as the work 
 of Basil, and quoted as such, it must have correctly exhibited the 
 usus loquendi of that age on the subject of baptism. In quoting 
 it, I follow the universal ancient usage in speaking of it as Basil's 
 work, though in truth the opinion of Garnier seems to me very 
 likely to be correct. Still, however this question is decided, the 
 worth of the testimony of the work as to the usus loquendi of 
 /3cx?rW;^oo is not at all aflcctcd. Indeed, as is the case in the work 
 ascribed to Athanasius, it but represents and embodies the usage 
 of previous writers, such as Origen, Eusebius, and Basil, if the 
 writer was not Basil himself. 
 
 Hence, if these views are correct, and of their correctness there 
 can be no reasonable doubt, the materials are ample for settling 
 the apostolic usage of the word in question : they include all the 
 Greek and Latin Fathers, and all the works written in their name 
 in their age. My only wonder is that Dr. Carson did not 
 resort to them first of all, instead of laboriously examining the 
 writings of authors who knew nothing of the rite in question, and 
 had, so far as appears, never seen or read the Greek, either of 
 the Old Testament or of the New. 
 
 Let us now consider Dr. Carson's statement as to the sense in 
 which the Fathers understood and used the word /Sa-Trn'^w. After 
 attempting to answer my biblical argument, he thus proceeds : 
 p. 466, " Mr. Beecher next professes to find proof in the Fathers. 
 Proof from the Fathers that (Sairri^oj signifies to purify f As 
 well might he profess to find in them proof for the existence of 
 railroads and steam-coaches. There is no such proof. There 
 is not an instance in all the Fathers in which the word or any of 
 its derivations are so used. Without exception, they use the word 
 always for immersion." This surely is sufficiently definite and 
 explicit, but it is not all, for he afterwards teaches that to assert 
 
§ 61. ADDITIONAL FACTS. 187 
 
 otherwise is not only false, but also an act of presumptuous har- 
 dihood : p. 470, " What is the hardihood of men who can presume 
 to allege the Fathers on the other side ?" 
 
 Those who have carefully examined the evidence which I have 
 already adduced on this point, might be amused by the extreme 
 ridiculousness of these assertions, if the subject were not too 
 serious for ridicule. But assertions of this kind have a moral as 
 well as an intellectual character, in the sight of God. Can any 
 one believe that Dr. Carson had ever made the investigations ne- 
 cessary to quality him to make such assertions ? And is this the 
 way in which he is wont to make statements on subjects so mo- 
 mentous ? An extended circle of minds rely on him for informa- 
 tion on topics beyond their reach. Over them his opinions and 
 unlimited assertions have a sway almost absolute. And is this 
 the way in which he uses his intellectual powers, and repays 
 their confidence ? I hesitate not to say, that he could not more 
 totally mislead all who rely upon him. Instead of that iron uni- 
 formity of use which he claims, there are few words which have 
 in the Fathers a usage more diversified and various. I have 
 hitherto aimed simply at one point, to prove that it has the usage 
 that I claim. To exhibit all the Patristic uses of the word I have 
 not attempted. And yet, perhaps, the time has come in which it 
 ought to be done, for it will give a more elevated point of vision 
 from which to survey the whole subject, and to study its symme- 
 try and proportions. After adducing, therefore, some further 
 evidence on the main point, I shall attempt to give a general view 
 of the Patristic uses of the word. 
 
 § Gl. Additional Facts. 
 
 Compare, then, with Dr. Carson's contemptuous denial of my 
 position, and his unlimited and overbearing assertions, the follow- 
 ing passage from Ambrose, a Father who was not only a student 
 of the works of Basil, but drew the materials of many of his own 
 works from them. Apol. David, § 59, " Per hyssopi fasciculum 
 
188 ADDITIONAL FACTS. § 61. 
 
 adspergebatur agni sanguine, qui mundari volebat typico baptis- 
 mate." " He who desired to be purified with a typical baptism 
 was sprinkled with the blood of a lamb by means of a bunch of 
 hyssop." Compare this now with the passages from Ambrose, 
 Cyril, and others, in § 53, and who does not see with absolute 
 and intuitive certainty that baptism has the sense of sacrificial 
 purification ? Sprinkling with blood was a typical purification, 
 but certainly it was not a typical immersion. 
 
 Indeed, so far did the Fathers carry the idea of sacrificial puri- 
 fication, that they gave the name baptism to cases in which the 
 expiated person was not touched by the purifying fluid. All that 
 they required was, that it should be so sprinkled or otherwise 
 used, that expiation should be actually made ; whenever this was 
 done in any way, they regarded the person as baptized, i. e. puri- 
 fied, or expiated, or absolved. 
 
 Hence when the blood of the Paschal Lamb was sprinkled on 
 the posts of the door, they regarded all in the house as baptized, 
 i. e. purified or expiated by blood. So both Theodoret and Am- 
 brose regard the purging with hyssop in Ps. li. 7. In the Septu- 
 agint it is. Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop. They both 
 applied it to baptizing, i. e. purifying by the blood of a lamb. 
 Hence also one who wrote in the name of Chrysostom,* speaks of 
 the thief on the cross as baptized, because expiation was made for 
 him by the water and blood that came out of the side of Christ. 
 He also intimates in the same passage, that if there had been a 
 shower of rain it would have been sufficient to baptize the thief, 
 but as there was not, he was baptized by the issuing of water 
 and blood from the side of Christ. All this is perfectly plain the 
 moment we assign to fJaitrl^oi the sacrificial sense to purify. For 
 the actual making of an expiation justified the application of the 
 word to the person expiated, and also by metonymy to that by 
 which it was made. And hence, as we have proved, Origen 
 states in general terms that Christ calls the shedding of his blood a 
 
 * Chrys. Vol. 2, p. 2S6, Venice. 173t. 
 
§ 6J. ADDITIONAL FACTS. 189 
 
 baptism. Hence, also, as we have seen, the water and the blood 
 that issued from his side were called baptisms. See § 52,also §§ 25, 
 26. Compare now Dr. Carson's positive and contemptuous 
 assertions with all these facts, and what shall we say ? It is not 
 the province of .the human mind to create facts in history or philo- 
 sophy, but simply to discover and classify them. But Dr. Carson 
 proceeds as if it were his province, by intense assertions, to create 
 them. But after all his assertions, they stand calmly and simply 
 just as they did before. I find in the Fathers no evidence at all 
 of the existence of railroads and steam-coaches, but abundant evi- 
 dence that /3a'7r'ri'^w means to purify. 
 
 Let me now add some further evidence on the subject of moral 
 purification. Repentance, sorrow for sin, the trials of God's pro- 
 vidence, and the truth, all purify the mind from sin. They do 
 not make expiation or atonement, but they purify in a moral 
 sense. Accordingly, in the usage of the Fathers all these things 
 are said to baptize. One writing in the name of Chrysostom enu- 
 merates five kinds of baptism.* Of these I shall notice the baptism 
 by the truth, and the baptism by fire. By fire he understands the 
 trials of life by which God purifies his children, calling and 
 choosing them in the furnace of affliction. In proof of this he 
 refers to Is. iv. 4, " The Lord shall purge by the spirit of burn- 
 ing ;" and Ps. Ixvi. 10, " Thou, O God, hast proved us, thou hast 
 tried us as gold and silver is tried." " For," says he, " as gold 
 or silver is purified in the furnace, by consuming the dross, so a 
 man, placed in the furnace of affliction, is sanctified by the re- 
 moval of his sins." To be thus baptized/ i. e. purified by fire, 
 he regards as a peculiar privilege of the sons of God. "But the 
 servants of the devil. are not baptized by fire. Wherefore ? Be- 
 cause he who is wholly polluted, cannot so lay aside his filth as 
 to be made clean. Begin to wash a brick in water, does it ever 
 become clean ? No ; but by stirring up the clay it becomes 
 more polluted. For he is made pure in whom is something good, 
 
 * Vol. 6, p. xliii. Opus Imperf. 
 
190 ADDITIONAL FACTS. § 61. 
 
 by means of which he can be made pure." Now all this argu- 
 ment is powerless to prove that the servants of the devil cannot be 
 immersed in fire. That can be done whether they are purified 
 or not. The argument proves only that the servants of Satan 
 are not purified by the fire of trial, because they are all dross, 
 there is in them no gold to be purified. But the sons of God are 
 purified by the fire of trial, because in them there is gold, and the 
 fire of trial consumes the dross and leaves the gold more pure. 
 Baptism by the truth he illustrates by a reference to John xv. 3, 
 *' Now are ye clean (xa&a^oi) through the word that I have spoken 
 unto you." Faith purifies, it does not immerse. 
 
 Anastasius, Bib. Pat. vol. ix. 1030, says that he " should dare 
 to call mourning, with reference to God, another baptism." In 
 Op. Isaise Abbatis, Bib. Vet. Pat. And. Gallandii, vol. vii. p. 
 292, it is said, " Affliction with humility and silence is a baptism, 
 for John was clothed in camel's hair, and had a leathern girdle 
 around his loins, and lived in the desert, which is a sign of afflic- 
 tion and penitence, which purifies a man." In all these cases 
 the idea of immersion is out of the question. The fire of trials, 
 the truth, sorrow for sins as against God, affliction with humility 
 and patience, all purify a man, but they do not immerse him. 
 Hence in all these cases, the idea of immersion is absolutely and 
 unquestionably excluded from the word baptism. No meaning 
 but purification is possible. 
 
 I have before me six lists of different kinds of baptism, by six 
 different Fathers, Gregory Nazianzen, Chrysostom, Athanasius, 
 Maximus, Isidore Hispalensis, and John of Damascus. The one 
 passing under the name of Athanasius is probably not his, but is 
 a decisive proof of the usus loquendi of the age, and it re-appears 
 enlarged in the works of John of Damascus. The list of John 
 of Damascus, I shall translate, and add to it remarks and illustra- 
 tions as I proceed. It is found on p. 261, vol. i., of his works. 
 —Ed. Paris, 1712. 
 
 1. " The first baptism was that of the deluge, for the expur- 
 gation of sin." 
 
§ 61. ADDITIONAL FACTS. 191 
 
 Of this Tertullian thus speaks, p. 259 : Paris, 1634. " After 
 the waters of the deluge, by which long continued iniquity was 
 purged away (purgatus est), after the haptism, if I may so say, of 
 the world." 
 
 Augustine, Cyprian, and others, from a different point of view, 
 call the deluge a baptism to those in the ark, because they were 
 purified and saved, but not immersed, whilst those out of it were 
 not purified, but were immersed, overwhelmed, and destroyed. 
 
 In each case, however, it is regarded as a baptism, solely as it 
 was a purification, not because it was an immersion. 
 
 2. " The second baptism is that by the sea and the cloud (<ro 
 Sia, ry}s ^aXarfrfr] j xa/ tyjs v£(p£Xr)j), for the cloud was a symbol of the 
 Spirit, and the sea of the water." 
 
 Here, as in other cases, the use of 5ia instead of sv should be 
 noticed, as throwing light on the causative sense of ev after ^air- 
 
 Hilarius says expressly in giving the sense of 1 Cor. x. 2, they 
 were purified hy the cloud, and hy the sea [per mare et per nubem 
 purificati), sv ttJ vsqjs'Xt) xal sv rfj fyaXaddji sjSam'T'Kfavro. 
 
 3. " The third was that under the law. For every one who 
 was unclean, washed himself (c/.'rrsXouSTo) with water, and wash- 
 ed (sVXuvs) his garments, and thus was prepared to enter into the 
 camp." 
 
 Here the idea is manifestly, not an immersion, but a complete 
 purification, effected by washing both the body and the clotlies. 
 This view is confirmed by Theophylact, who says, on Jn. ii. 6 : 
 " The Jews daily washed themselves (^dtS'Tr'kvv ovro), and thus puri- 
 fied, ate; as forexample, if they had touched a leper or a dead body, 
 or had sexual intercourse, they waslied themselves (d'jfsXovovTo), 
 as unclean." Flere he interchanges d'jfS'n'XvvovTo and cl'rsXouovTo 
 as equivalent. To denote the same idea /SofTrri^w is also used. 
 
 Basil, commenting on Isa. i. 16, wash you, make you clean, 
 says : " This Scripture seems in words to contradict itself; God 
 first refuses to hear, rnd to forgive sir-, and then says wash 
 (Heb. V2n'2, Gr. Xot^a'ao-Js), as if they could be purified. 
 
192 ADDITIONAL FACTS. § 61. 
 
 One, however, relates to salvation by the Mosaic Law, the other 
 by the Gospel. He here repeals the law, and introduces the Gos- 
 pel. Shall we (says the Jew) perform legal rites ? Nay, all 
 are rejected. What then shall we do ? Wash and make clean. 
 Oh, yes (replies the Jew), Moses said something about washing, 
 for he said, he who touches any unclean thing, and is polluted, 
 shall wash his garments and wash his body with water, and shall be 
 clean. 
 
 But in this passage (replies Basil), God does not say wash for 
 every instance of pollution, but merely wash (Xov(fa(f6s). There is 
 one washing — one purification — sv (SairrKf^M, ^ia xa^a^tfj^ ." 
 
 Here the Hebrew yrt*! and the Greek Xouco, and /Sa-Trrj^w as im- 
 plied in (Suirncf^M, are all undeniably used as synonymes. 
 
 On Heb. ix. 10, Divers Baptisms, Theodoret also uses (Sa'z'- 
 tI^u in the sense to wash. He says, concerning those polluted by 
 an issue, or leprosy, or sexual intercourse, they washed them- 
 selves (s/3a'7r<r»^ovTo) and were cleansed with sprinkling. Where, 
 as Basil also does, he uses ^airri^G) as an equivalent of f i^^. 
 
 Theophylact says, on the same passage, if any one had touch- 
 ed a dead body, or a leper, or had an issue, " he washed himself, 
 and so appeared to be cleansed" — sfSccTrrl^src^ xal oCtus sSoxsi xa^a^i- 
 
 Chrysostom says,* " The Jewish Baptism (fBa-rtrKfixa) purified 
 from bodily pollutions, but not from sins that affected the conscience. 
 It did not expiate adultery, theft, and other crimes; but if anyone 
 had touched the bones of the dead, or eaten forbidden food, or had 
 touched lepers, he washed himself (sXousto), and was unclean un- 
 til evening, and afterwards he was clean." For, says he, " 'he 
 shall wash his body with pure water, and shall be unclean until 
 evening, and then he shall be clean.' — Levit. xv. 7. Therefore 
 the Jewish purification (xa^Ja^tfjov) did not purify from sins, but 
 from bodily pollutions alone." In his premises he has ^o.nri<i[LOi 
 'Iou(5a»3<6v, in his conclusions xa^o-pcTjov louJcuxcv, as itssynonyme. 
 
 * Vol. 2, p. 370. Paris. 1718. De Baptismo Christi. 
 
§ 61. ADDITIONAL FACTS. 193 
 
 All the Fathers in like manner take the divers baptisms ofHeb. 
 ix.. 10, to mean merely and solely j^uri/ications of persons, some- 
 times by washing, as in this case, at others by sprinkling of blood, 
 or of ashes, as in the cases quoted from Ambrose and Cyril of 
 Jerusalem. They also look upon the system as a system of puri- 
 fication, taken as a whole, including not only the washing of the 
 body and of the clothes, but also sprinkling with blood and ashes. 
 Taken in this broad sense, it is called lout^aVxov ^a^itTid^a, or lou- 
 6oCixw xu6a,^(fiov, or, as in this case, fSu'rrrKf^a vo/xixo'v. 
 
 4. " The fourth baptism is that of John, which was introductory, 
 and designed to lead those who were baptized to repentance, that 
 they might believe in Christ, for, said he, I baptize you with 
 water, but he who cometh after me shall baptize you with the 
 Holy Spirit, and with fire. John, therefore, purifies beforehand hy 
 water, to prepare the way for the Spirit" — ('K'^oxcc&ai^si ouv o luaw^g 
 
 5. " The fifth was the baptism of our Lord, wherewith he was 
 baptized. But he is baptized, not as if he needed purification, 
 but that he might take upon himself my purification, that he might 
 bruise the heads of the dragons in the water, that he might im- 
 merse my sins, and bury the old Adam in the water, that he 
 might purify the baptist, that he might fulfil the law, that he 
 might reveal the mystery of the Trinity, that he might be a type 
 and example of our baptism ; but we are baptized with the per- 
 fect baptism of the Lord, that which is hy water and the Spirit 
 (to Si' u^aToj rs xal irvsufxaTOf). Moreover, Christ is said to baptize 
 with fire, because he poured out the grace of the Spirit upon the 
 Holy Apostles, in the form of fiery tongues, as our Lord said, Acts 
 i. 5, or else on account of the punitive baptism of future fire." 
 
 " The sixth baptism is that by tears and repentance (to ^jd 
 jxSTavoiaj xoli ^axpowv) — which is truly painful." 
 
 " The seventh baptism is that by blood and martyrdom — 
 (to ^r al'jxaTOff xal jaapTupi'ou), with which Christ was baptized for us. 
 It is peculiarly honorable, inasmuch as he who is thus baptized 
 (i. e. purified), is never polluted again." 
 
 9 
 
194 ADDITIONAL FACTS. § 61- 
 
 " The eighth and last is not a salutary baptism, but one that is 
 destructive of evil. For sin and evil can no more bear sway, 
 but are punished for ever." 
 
 To this list the author of the " opus imperfectum" on Matt, 
 adds baptism by the truth, and baptism by afflictions, as stated 
 above. 
 
 The usage of the preposition 6ioi in Nos. 2, 5, and 6, should 
 be compared M^ith its use at the end of No. 4, as furnishing de- 
 cisive proof of the sense of the word baptism in this whole list. 
 
 But still more decisive, and beyond all possibility of answer, 
 is the passage which follows, designed to explain an assertion in 
 No. 5, that Christ was baptized that he might purify the baptizer. 
 The purification of John is thus explained : z^a'Xrld&'Y] 'Iwawyj^Ti^v 
 
 John was baptized by placing his hand on the divine head of his 
 master and by his own blood. 
 
 The Fathers held that Christ, by touching the waters, purified 
 them, and gave them a purifying power. 
 
 So also they held that by touching John he purified him, and 
 this purification by touch he expressed by /^a-Ti'Tj^w. Surely all 
 idea of immersion is excluded here. Indeed he expresses the 
 same idea by ayjct^w, in another part of the passage. Christ was 
 baptized that he might purify (007101^17) the baptizer. John was 
 also clearly regarded by the Fathers as purified by his own blood, 
 not immersed in it. 
 
 From these lists we also learn that the eternal punishment of 
 the wicked is a baptism, because it will purge the holy universe 
 from sin. The flood was a baptism, for two reasons; it purified 
 the world from sinners and sin ; and it also purified and saved 
 those in the ark. But the wicked, who were immersed by the 
 flood, were not baptized. So also the whole process of legal puri- 
 fication under the law, including the washing of the clothes as 
 well as that of the body, was called a baptism. Viewing it as a 
 complex whole, it was proper to call it a purification, but not an 
 immersion. So too the washing of the disciples' feet by Christ is 
 
§ 62. OTHER ERRORS OF DR. CARSON. 195 
 
 regarded by another Father as a baptism ;* and by still another, 
 the anointing of the blind man's eyes with clay and spittle, 
 and his washing in the pool of Siloam, because the spittle of 
 Christ purifies as well as the washing in the pool.f 
 
 What now shall we say to all these things ? If Dr. Carson 
 had asserted that the Mississippi ran from the Gulf of Mexico 
 with an impetuous current towards the cold regions of the north, 
 and there descended by one vast cataract towards the centre of 
 the globe, and had charged all with presumptuous temerity who 
 dared to call in question the truth of his assertions, he could not 
 be more utterly at war with the facts of the case, than he is in his 
 assertions as to the Patristic use of ^a'jrTj^w. 
 
 § 62. Other Errors of Br. Carson. 
 
 It was with reference to assertions such as these that I remark- 
 ed, that Dr. Carson had made assertions that I knew not how to 
 explain if he had ever read the Greek Fathers. 
 
 Indeed, Dr. Carson has elsewhere made assertions as to other 
 words with the same inexplicable disregard of facts. On p. 
 445, he thus speaks : " Mr. Beecher's criticism on the word 
 (-Trs^ixXutfatf^ai) here (Tobit vi. 2) employed for washing, is en- 
 tirely false. '^ I translated it to wash all around. He proceeds, 
 " The simple word signifies to deluge, to overwhelm, to inundate, 
 to flow over anything." " Mr. Beecher criticises from imagina- 
 tion, not from knowledge of the language. Has he justified his 
 criticism by a single example ?" He then remarks with great 
 P"^ taste and refinement, " The word does not signify that the young 
 man in bathing splashed about like a duck, or rubbed himself like 
 a collier, but that he threw himself into the river, that the stream 
 might flow over him." Again, " There is no friction nor hand- 
 washing in this word. It performs its purpose by running over 
 either gently or with violence." So much learned minuteness 
 
 , • Anastasius, Bibliotheca Patrura Max. vol. ix. p. 880. 
 t Ambrose, vol. ii. p. 109G ; on Jn. ix. 7. 
 
196 OTHER ERRORS OF DR. CARSON. § 62. 
 
 and such bold charges on me of inaccuracy, would lead an incau- 
 tious reader to suppose that Dr. Carson must have first made sure 
 his facts before daring thus to commit himself before the learned 
 world. Indeed, when I first read his remarks it produced a tem- 
 porary impression that 1 must be wrong, or he would not dare to 
 make such assertions. But the moment I looked at facts, the illu- 
 sion vanished. It is indeed true that xXv^u) has, in some cases, 
 the meaning that he assigns to it. But it is not true that it has 
 not the meaning that I assign to it. The facts are these : 1. It 
 is applied by Euripides to washing the body with sea water, 
 where vjV<rw also is applied to the same operation, which Dr. 
 Carson admits denotes hand-washing. 
 
 2. It is applied to the washing of children, by Aristotle — ro 
 ';r'ai^jov vSuri 'jts^ixkvi^siv — to wash the child all around with water. 
 
 3. In Geoponica 17, 22, it is applied to washing an ulcer by 
 a fluid, sXxos xXu^sjv oC^uj. Here is no deluging, overwhelming, 
 or inundation. 
 
 4. Epiphanius applies it to the purifications of the Jews, 
 xXu^o'fASvoi ov^u), where deluging or overflowing is out of the ques- 
 tion. — Vol. i. p. 26. 
 
 5. By Pollux it is applied to the washing of clothes, and also 
 of cups, and is given as a synonyme of iirXvvsiv, and ^vTtTSiv, and 
 xa&ai^siv, and their compounds with 6i6l, diro, and jx. What can be 
 more decisive ? 
 
 6. It is applied to the washing of head, hands, and body, after 
 an unlucky dream. 
 
 7. It is used by Plutarch to denote the washing off* blood from 
 armor, aljxa twv oVXojv sti ^s^jxov diroxXu^srai. Plut. 7. 283. 11. 
 
 8. It is applied by Lucian to an object wet or sprinkled on all 
 sides with spray, by rapid motion through water at rest, ctcp^oj 
 flTs^jxXu^ojxsvov. Lucian, V. H. 1. 31. Here surely is no flow- 
 ing of water over an object. 
 
 9. Like xa&ai^o, it has a medical use to cleanse or purge — 
 lar^oi 'n'lx^dv 'n'lx^oTg xXu^outfi 9a^juuaxoif -x^oXtjv. Plut. — Physicians 
 purge out bitter bile by bitter medicines. Indeed its medical use 
 gave birth to our English word clyster. 
 
 1 
 
§ 63. GENERAL VIEW OF PATRISTIC USES OF BAIITIZQ. 197 
 
 10. All lexicographers of any note sustain my use of the 
 word, e. g. Stephens, Scapula, Damm, Hedericus, Ernesti, Pas- 
 sow, Schneider, etc. etc. Hence it is plain that assertions more 
 contrary to the fact than Dr. Carson's criticism on me cannot be 
 made, even if I were to say that Dr. Carson criticises from ima- 
 gination, and not from a knowledge of the language in translat- 
 ing vSc^^ water or nrv^ fire. And whatever Dr. Carson's talents 
 they cannot enable his character as an accurate scholar long to 
 survive such criticisms as he has here given. 
 
 In like manner when I say that Josephus uses /Scc-tttjo'i^ to de- 
 note the rite of baptism. Dr. Carson denies it, and says, " The 
 ^ (SairrKfis is the immersing — l3aitTKfy.6gisthe rite of immersion." 
 And yet it must be notorious to any one who has ever read the 
 Fathers, that they do not hesitate to use ^anfrKfis to denote the 
 rite, in opposition to xaradv(fig, the act of immersing, as in Sozo- 
 men, ixia xaradudsi iir'iTsXsTv t>^v dsiav (Saitridiv. " To perform the 
 sacred baptism by one immersion.^^ 
 
 Many of Dr. Carson's assertions as to tingo, /Da-Tfrw, Xouw, and 
 viitru, are of the same kind. Indeed I do not remember that I 
 ever read a writer, so many of whose most positive assertions 
 were so totally at war with facts. But success in such an as- 
 sault on facts is hopeless. The highest talents are entirely un- 
 equal to such a war. 
 
 § 63. General View of Patristic Uses of (Sa'trri^cju 
 
 But enough has been said to show the entire incorrectness of 
 Dr. Carson's theories of the Patristic uses of (Sairri^o. I shall 
 therefore conclude this part of the subject by a brief general 
 view of what that usage is. 
 
 1. Of course I need not say that they sometimes use the word 
 in the sense to immerse anything in water, or to denote the state 
 of anything that sinks in the water or is overflowed by it. And 
 also that from this are derived metaphorical uses to denote immer- 
 sion in sorrow, ignorance, darkness, sin, pollution, afflictions, and 
 
198 GENERAL VIEW OF PATRISTIC USES OF BAlITIZfi. § 63. 
 
 misery. All this I have before noticed at large. See §§ 3 and 
 4, 10 and 28. 
 
 2. To wash, implying an effort to cleanse,hn\. not including the 
 effect. In this sense they use it as a translation of the Heb. fn^^ 
 just as they use Xoi;w. In this case /Sot-Trritfp-a is taken in connex- 
 ion with xoi&a^dig or y.a&a^i(i^k ', thus, commenting on Is. i.l6, 
 Basil (as before stated, § 61), to denote the idea of wash- 
 ing, uses /SofTrT J (Tfjia, and to denote purification, he uses xaSa^&ig. 
 Basil thus reasons, as a Jew " Moses said something concerning 
 washing (Xour^ou), for he who touched any unclean thing and was 
 polluted, shall wash his garments and his body with water, and 
 shall be clean." He replies. " But Isaiah, when he said wash 
 you, make you clean, did not say wash you on account of every 
 pollution ; but simply wash. There is one washing, one purifica- 
 tion." £v jSa-rTitfixa |Aia xa&a^(fis. In like manner Theodoret and 
 Theophylact plainly use /Sa-Trr/^w in the sense to wash, in speak- 
 ing of the Mosaic washings enjoined by the word fTVi, So in the 
 Apostolic Constitutions we find washings and purifications ex- 
 pressed in the same way. For example in book vi. c. 20, and c. 
 30, and elsewhere, the phrase tfuvsp^v^ /SacrTiVixara clearly denotes 
 frequent washings. Dr. Chase deserve sgreat credit for his can- 
 dor in so translating it, in his recent valuable edition of the Apos- 
 tolic Constitutions and Canons, pp. 151, 161. 
 
 3. To cleanse and purify by washing, i. e. to wash, including 
 the effect, and hence, in general, to purify in the most generic sense, 
 either by water, or by truth, or by atonement and expiation, or 
 by trials, or by mourning and sorrow. After what has been said 
 there is no need to offer any proof of the real existence of this 
 sense. But here it is peculiarly important to bear in mind the 
 distinction between sacrificial purification, or expiation, and 
 moral purification, or sanctification, to which I have so often re- 
 ferred. For without a clear apprehension of it, much of the 
 language of the Fathers cannot be understood. 
 
 4. (3a'n'TKfix6s and ^am-ritf^.a by metonymy denote means of 
 purification, e. g. water, blood, fire, oil, air, &c. § 52. 
 
§ 63. GENERAL VIEW OF PATRISTIC USES OF BAriTIZS2. 199 
 
 5. (jaziritfixa is also used to denote, comprehensively, a system 
 designed to effect purification in various ways, e. g. (3kziri(![}.a. 
 Mwutfg'ojj, or vofxixo'v or 'Jou(JaBc6v which Chrysostom interchanges 
 as synonymous with xafia^dm 'lovSaTxov, to denote not an act, nor 
 one rite merely, but a complex system, involving and compre- 
 hending various kinds and modes of purification. So Basil says of 
 the Jewish baptism, " it recognised a difference of sins, not forgiving 
 all ; it required various sacrifices, it made minute regulations as 
 to purity, it separated the polluted and unclean for a time, it ob- 
 served times and seasons." In all this he is plainly illustrating a 
 system of purification involving many parts, but having one great 
 end, i. e. to purify, either by expiatory sacrifices, or in some 
 other way. So too, the baptism of John or of Christ is often used 
 in like manner to denote a system of purification. 
 
 6. They also used it to denote, comprehensively, the actual 
 processes involved in conferring absolution ; e. g. if exorcism, 
 divesting of all clothing, immersion, unction, and robing in white, 
 the pronunciation of certain words, and a benediction, were sup- 
 posed to be involved in conferring a legal and valid absolution, 
 then the term (Sa-sirKfij.a was comprehensively used to include all 
 these processes. Any part of the process that purified was also 
 called by the same name. So Origen speaks of baptizing, i. e. 
 purifying with oil. And the Apostolic Constitutions speak of 
 unction as a type of spiritual baptism, i. e. spiritual purification. 
 
 7. The result or effect produced by these processes, or 
 symbolized by them, they also denote by the word baptism 
 or purification, i. e. absolution, remission of sins. It is in 
 this sense that Zonaras, in his Lexicon, defines baptism as 
 being the remission of sins by water and the Spirit. This remis- 
 sion of sins was effected, in their view, not by any energy of the 
 water in itself, but by some mysterious, sanctifying power given 
 to it when the Spirit brooded upon it at the creation, or when 
 Christ was baptized in it, or when the bishop or priest con- 
 secrated it, operating in concurrence with the energy of the Holy 
 
200 GENERAL VIEW OF PATRISTIC USES OF BAIITIZii. § 63. 
 
 Spirit, who, according to a divine constitution, diffused and 
 exerted his mighty energies in and through the water. In this 
 way, in their view, was effected the baptism of the Holy Ghost ; 
 and the superiority of the baptism of Christ to that of John lay in 
 the fact that John used the simple fluid water, but in that of 
 Christ, a compound fluid, so to speak, was employed, composed of 
 sanctified water, and the influence of the Holy Spirit. On no 
 topic is the eloquence of Chrysostom so fervid, as when he un- 
 folds the purifying, nay, regenerating powers of this semi- 
 material, semi-spiritual compound. As quick as the ocean ex- 
 tinguishes a spark that falls into it, so soon does this mighty 
 compound extinguish the sins of the sinner that falls into it, and 
 makes him pure as the angels and brilliant as the sunbeams of 
 heaven. To symbolize this spotless whiteness of the soul thus 
 miraculously and suddenly obtained, the baptized person was 
 robed in purest white. His being stripped perfectly naked before 
 immersion, was designed to give to the miraculous energies of the 
 fluid full scope to penetrate every part of body and soul. And 
 in the opinion of some of the Fathers, these waters also had a 
 miraculous power even to heal bodily disease, of which they 
 give us some examples, as true, no doubt, as all other of the lying 
 wonders of that age of fraud and delusion. The word baptism, 
 used in this sense, denoted not merely a transient act, but a 
 permanent and abiding moral change effected by the rite. The 
 soul was conceived of as invested in a robe of spotless purity. 
 Hence baptism is likened to spiritual robes, and the Fathers 
 speak of putting on the baptism of Christ, and of preserving their 
 baptism unspotted. Origen preferred the baptism of blood to that 
 of water and the Spirit, because few keep this unspotted till 
 death, but the purity gained by the baptism of a bloody death is 
 polluted no more. The leading idea in this usage of the word 
 is a permanent state or character of purity, and not the act of im- 
 mersion at all. Indeed, what sense is there in such an expres- 
 sion as keeping the act of immersion unspotted till death ? The 
 
§ 63. GENERAL VIEW OF PATRISTIC USES OF BAIITIZQ. 201 
 
 act is soon over, and all possibility of polluting or making it pure 
 is passed by. And yet Dr. Carson again and again asserts that 
 baptism always denotes the mode of an act, and nothing else. 
 
 8. The word Baptism is also used as the appropriated name of 
 the rite of Christian Baptism. In this case it approximates in its 
 use towards a proper name, or a technical term, i. e. the attention 
 of the mind is abstracted from the meaning of the word, though 
 it is in fact significant, and is fixed upon the rite for which it 
 stands. Thus to speak of the purification of baptism would not 
 be tautology, but would denote the purification effected by the 
 rite bearing that name. 
 
 9. Finally, the Fathers gave the name baptism to any trans- 
 action regarded by them either as typifying baptism, or producing 
 similar effects ; e. g. when Elisha raised the axe out of the water 
 by throwing in a stick, Ambrose regards it as a baptism, because 
 as the axe was immersed in the water, so was the sinner in sin 
 — and as the stick raised the axe out of the water, so does bap- 
 tism, i. e. remission of sins, raise a sinner out of his sins. The 
 stick, according to him, is, of course, a type of the cross of 
 Christ. So when Moses, by throwing in the branches of a tree, 
 made the bitter waters of Marah sweet, Ambrose regards it as 
 another kind of baptism, because as the branches made bitter 
 waters sweet, so does baptism make sweet the bitterness of the 
 human heart. Origen regards the passage of Elijah over Jor- 
 dan, as he was taken up in a chariot of fire, as a wonderful bap- 
 tism, because he thus passed over Jordan, and went to heaven ; 
 and baptism does something like this for the pardoned soul. 
 Passing through the Red Sea was a baptism, because it purified 
 the Israelites, and drowned Pharaoh, by immersion, just as the 
 rite of Baptism purifies Christians, and leaves Satan and the old 
 man immersed and strangled in the baptismal pool. The flood 
 was a baptism, because it purified and saved Noah and his family 
 — and also purified the world — and immersed and strangled the 
 enemies of God — just as the rite of baptism purifies all who come 
 by it, into the ark, i. e. the church — and as the waters of the 
 
 9* 
 
 I 
 
202 GENERAL VIEW APPLIED. § 64. 
 
 flood immersed, strangled, and purged off the wicked, so will an 
 eternal baptism of fire purge out the wicked from the kingdom of 
 God. They are the chaff to be burnt up with unquenchable fire, 
 when the Redeemer thoroughly purges his floor. 
 
 Hence, in the days of the Fathers, the narrow view that ^air- 
 Ti'^w means only to immerse had no being. The great idea be- 
 fore their minds was purification or absolution. This they ap- 
 plied to means of purification, or a system of purification, or to 
 the processes involved in being purified, or to the supposed re- 
 sult of these processes, or to the rites viewed as an ordinance of 
 Christ, or to any supposed or real typical transaction producing 
 what they deemed similar effects. 
 
 § 64. General View Applied. 
 
 By thus throwing off" the shackles of arbitrary canons, and 
 leaving the mind perfectly free to watch the actual evolutions of 
 the facts of language in the writings of the Fathers, we find our- 
 selves enabled to solve without difficulty all their various modes 
 of expression. For example, when Photius says, aS T^sTg dvaSv- 
 (fsiS xai xaTa8v<fsis tov (BairT'Kfixarog Qavarov xal avadradiv tf7)ju,aivou(T'iv, 
 we see at once that ^aitridy.a refers to the rite of absolution, and 
 ctvoK^uo'ij and xara^urfj^ to acts involved in it. Thus " the three 
 immersions and emersions of the rite of purification (or absolu- 
 tion) symbolize death and resurrection." 
 
 Again Theophylact says, ^aifT\(i[kOi uxf'n'S^ Siol rrjs xaraSvtfsus 
 Gavarov ourw §ia Tvjg dva8v(fscjJS rriv dvatfratfiv tutToT. " As the rite 
 of purification shows forth death by immersion, so by emersion it 
 shows forth resurrection." 
 
 Again he says, sv r^itfi xaraSucfscfi rov Cw/xaTo^ sv ^a.'n'rKfixa ToTg 
 laurou li^a&riTaTs 'Tta^adiSuixsXsyuv m'o^sv&svrss ixa&rirsv(faTS, etc.. Matt, 
 xxviii. 19. He gave to his disciples one rite or ordinance of pu- 
 rification, by three immersions of the body, saying, go ye there- 
 fore and teach all nations, etc. 
 
 I would here call attention once more to the fact, that to de- 
 
§ 64. GENERAL VIEW APPLIED. 203 
 
 note the act of immersion xara^'ua'i? is used, reserving to /SaTr'ntrfxa 
 the sense purification or absolution as the name of the rite. But 
 inasmuch as ^aifTK^fxa could be used to denote the act of immer- 
 sion, it was sometimes, though rarely, so used, of which in § 28, 
 4, 1 have given an example from the Apostolic Constitutions, Can. 
 lu. r^lcL (BtxitTla^oLTo. inoig ix^vrjcfsus three immersions of one initia- 
 tion. This was so clearly a departure from common usage, that 
 both Zonaras and Balsamon deemed it worthy of a note. That of 
 Zonaras I have given in the section referred to. That of Balsa- 
 mon is this, TO. Ss (Saifr'Ktiiarot, ivrav&a, dvri xaraSvtfsuv uroX'/rrTSov 
 jxoi. This note is still more remarkable and decisive than that of 
 Zonaras — for he merely gives it as his opinion that /SacrTjVjxaTa 
 means immersions here — " It seems to me that /Sa'n'Tio'jxaTa is to 
 be taken for immersions here." Indeed ! If it never means any- 
 thing but immersions, as Dr. Carson says, both the note itself and 
 this modest expression of opinion are quite out of place. But Dr. 
 Carson's theory of this word is entirely a modern invention. No 
 one had ever dreamed of it in the patristic age. Balsamon well 
 knew that in common usage ^airrKf^j^a, meant purification, and not 
 immersion. 
 
 It may be well here to notice the sophistical reasoning by 
 which the author of this canon endeavored to make out the doc- 
 trine of trine immersion. It was this : Christ did not enjoin it 
 upon them to purify into his death, in which case there would 
 have been one immersion, but into the name of the Father, 
 and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost ; hence, it being assumed 
 that immersion is the mode, there must be one act of immersion 
 for each person. In this reasoning, l3a,irTi^o in the command re- 
 tains its usual sense, but when from the three persons the in- 
 ference is drawn that there ought to be three acts of immer- 
 sion, it leaves its usual sense, and denotes to immerse, and this 
 usage was thought by two Greek commentators, to be so likely to 
 mislead as to need an explanatory note, to prevent confusion. 
 
 In Gregory Nazianzen occurs a striking passage, of peculiar in- 
 terest, as showing at once that immersion was in fact the usual 
 
204 GENERAL VIEW APPLIED. ^ 64. 
 
 practice, but not the meaning of the word : (3a<jfri(i{ka xakoviisv us 
 (fvv&a.'jrroijJvYis rj vSan tyjs aixa^rias — " We call it (i. e. the rite) 
 baptism, i. e. absolution or purification, because our sins are 
 buried with us in the water." Whilst this clearly implies that 
 in the rite they were in fact buried in the water, it no less 
 clearly implies that it was not called baptism for this reason, but 
 because their sins were buried with them. The burial of sins 
 in the baptismal pool, was a common mode of expressing absolu- 
 tion or purification from sin, taken from Micah vii. 19, Thou wilt 
 cast all their sins into the depth of the sea. So that the sense is 
 plainly this : we call it purification, because, when we are buried 
 in the baptismal pool, our sins are buried with us, and we of 
 course come out perfectly pure. If the word had meant immer- 
 sion, he must have said simply : We call it immersion, because 
 we are immersed. 
 
 We now come to a case of inconsistent usage, inconsistent at 
 least with the present systems of philology. In a few cases 
 Chrysostom uses the principle of a double sense in commenting 
 on this word. Inasmuch as both meanings, i. e. purification and 
 immersion, coexist in the language, and immersion was the com- 
 mon mode, on this principle the word can be expounded as having 
 both meanings in one and the same place, in order to give greater 
 fulness to the passage. At this we need not wonder in the 
 Fathers. A certain class of modern commentators have not 
 hesitated to do the same thing. On this ground Chrysostom in a 
 few instances gives a two- fold exposition of the passage in which 
 Christ says, I have a baptism to be baptized with, etc. 
 
 One exposition is based on the sense purification. As in Horn. 
 65, al. 66, on Matt. — Speaking of his death on the cross, he says 
 he calls it baptism, jSacrTitf/xa, indicating that a great purification, 
 xa^a^jULov, should be made for the world by the things then 
 transpiring — De petit fil Zebedai. Vol. i. p. 520. 
 
 Again he says, " he calls it baptism, because by it he purified 
 the world, and not only so, but on account of the ease of his re- 
 surrection, for as he who is immersed (Saitn^oiJ.svos in water arises 
 
§ 64. GENERAL VIEW APPLIED. 205 
 
 with great ease, being nothing hindered by the nature of the 
 waters, so he having descended unto death arose again with ease, 
 for this reason he calls it baptism : and again, on Mark x. 39, 
 " he calls his cross baptism, for as we are easily immersed and 
 arise again, so he having died, easily arose again when he would." 
 In § 26, p. 66, I have said, " Nor have I found any evidence 
 that the passages in Luke xii. 50, Mark x. 37, 39, Matt. xx. 22, 
 23, were ever understood by any of the Fathers in the sense 
 either of immersion or overwhelming." This usage of Chrysos- 
 tom is an exception, and it is the only one that I have yet found. 
 He plainly uses the word in both senses, purification and immer- 
 sion. And yet even in these cases the sense purification can be 
 retained as the name of the rite, and the illustration be taken 
 from the well known mode of its performance, though the view 
 that I have taken seems to me most likely to be correct. I have 
 already twice stated that cases of inconsistent usage may exist, 
 without at all destroying the force of my argument, § 27, 
 page 66, and § 21, page 51 ; yet after extended research my 
 greatest surprise has been, that I have found so few such cases. 
 I have been surprised, because when I considered how general 
 was the practice of immersion among the Fathers, and how natural 
 it was that their practice should react upon their language, and 
 that immersion was in fact an existing: meaning of the word, it 
 seemed strange to me that this meaning should so rarely be given 
 to the word fSairri^u in speaking of the rite. But when I re- 
 flected that the great idea of purification, i. e. absolution, or re- 
 mission of sins, was ever uppermost in their minds, and that im- 
 mersion, though the common mode, was not deemed essential to 
 it, I saw a sufficient reason for reserving to /Sa-TTitfixa this great 
 idea, and introducing the terms xaraSvifis and avatJutfiff to denote 
 immersion and emersion. 
 
 The real nature of this idiom will become clearer by a passage 
 of Gregory Nyssen, in which he uses xa^a^cfis so as to show the 
 force of (BairrKfixa when used with dvadvffis and xaradvtfis : " omit- 
 ting things beyond our power let us inquire rivos svsxsv 6i' vSaros ^ 
 
206 COMMISSION TO BAPTIZE. § 65. 
 
 for what end is the rite of purification by water, and for what use 
 the three immersions are employed ?" All see in this case a 
 usage ofxadoi^(fis exactly equivalent to the use of ./Sa-Trritffxa just 
 illustrated. The use of the preposition Sia after xa&a^(fis and 
 equivalent words, illustrates the use of the same preposition after 
 I3a'!rri(fixa, &c. I will by parallel columns still further exhibit 
 this similarity of usage to the eye. 
 
 The following uses of xa^ct^dig, 
 ayvKfixog, &c., are taken from 
 Cyril of Alexandria : 
 
 Tov ayvidixov dC vSaros — 
 Trjv xct&cc^tfiv ^i' v8arog 
 
 Tou ^i' ai'/xaToff a^vitf/Aou — 
 
 r-^v 8ia X^jVtou xa^a^Civ 73 Si 
 vdarog ts xai crvsu/xaroff 
 
 The following are from Gre- 
 gory Thaum. Athanasius — 
 Clemens Alexand. : 
 
 fBaitrKfi^a 61a, 8ax^{)(j)v 
 (Satrri^siv Si' vSarog 
 
 ^anfTid^oL 5t' ai'/xaroj 
 
 /SoL'Trriff'/xa voy)<rov 6i6i 'n'vsviiaros — 
 /5a.<ff'Tio'/xa dKf&yirov Si' vSarog. 
 
 This comparison of similar idioms could be extended to other 
 prepositions, as iv taken in the instrumental sense as equivalent 
 to Sia. — and also to the use of the dative in the instrumental sense 
 after both words, showing by an extended induction of particulars 
 such an exact similarity in the use of prepositions and cases after 
 (Sa.'Kria^y.a and xa^a^rfj^, &c., as proves them at a glance to be 
 synonymous, for the word xara^utfif , immersion, is never followed 
 by such prepositions and the dative case in such a sense. See 
 also § 56, on the same point. 
 
 § 65. Commission to Baptize. 
 
 I will conclude this general view by noticing its bearings on a 
 question relating to the commission to baptize. It is this. Why 
 is there a commission given to baptize in Matthew and Mark, and 
 none in Luke and John ? This is a question for those to answer 
 
§ 66. DR. Carson's dissertation on aoY i2. 207 
 
 who deny the correctness of the view that I have given — for on 
 this view it presents no difficulty at all. The reply is, that a 
 commission to baptize is in fact a commission to purify, that is, a 
 commission to remit sins — and in Luke and John, the disciples do 
 receive a commission to remit sins. Luke xxiv. 47, 48, — " That 
 repentance and remission of sins should be preached in his name 
 among all nations — and ye are witnesses of these things," that 
 is, that repentance and baptism should be preached in his name 
 among all nations — for according to Zonaras and the Fathers, 
 baptism is the forgiveness of sins by water and the Spirit. 
 
 This view of the passages in Luke and John occurred to my 
 mind before reading the Fathers, as furnishing a test of the 
 soundness of my views, and on reading them I found that they did 
 in fact regard the commission to remit sins in Luke and John as 
 a commission to baptize, as really as that in Matthew and Mark. 
 They regarded it in short as merely another mode of expressing 
 the same idea. In John the phraseology is different from that of 
 Luke : — " Whosesoever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto 
 them, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained," John 
 XX. 23. In short, Christ died as the Lamb of God to take away 
 the sins of the world, and the great business of the apostles was 
 to publish to the world the great doctrine of the remission of sins, 
 through his death, and the terms on which it could be obtained, 
 and to establish the rite by which this purgation from sin should 
 be shadowed forth and commemorated in honor of the Trinity, 
 and especially of that Spirit by whom this atonement was made 
 effectual to purge the conscience from dead works to serve the 
 living God. " Go ye therefore, teach all nations, purifying them 
 (that is remitting to them that repent and believe their sins) into 
 the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 Amen." 
 
 § 66. Dr. Carson's dissertation on Xovu. 
 
 A few words ought here to be said on the meaning of the words 
 Xouw and Xou<r^6v. I have affirmed that by their own force they 
 
208 DR. carson's dissertation on AOY'Q. § 66. 
 
 denote simply washing or purification, and not bathing. To 
 prove this I referred, in § 16, to the fact that the vessels for 
 washing the hands in the vestibules of ancient churches were 
 called XovTYj^sg as well as viifri^^sg. Dr. Carson sees fit in view 
 of this, to devote nearly nine pages to a dissertation on Xouw. 
 He opens his dissertation as follows, p. 66 : " The philosophical 
 linguist Dr. Campbell, of Aberdeen, in distinguishing the words 
 Xo;;gj and vjVtw, makes the first signify to wash or bathe the whole 
 body, the last to wash or bathe a part. This distinction has been 
 generally received since the time of Dr. Campbell. Mr. 
 Beecher calls it in question, yet he does not touch the subject 
 with the hand of a master. He merely alleges an objection 
 which he thinks calculated to bring confusion into what is thought 
 to be clear ; but he gives no additional light by any learned ob- 
 servations of his own. I shall endeavor to settle this question by 
 evidence founded on the practice of language as well as the 
 practice of the New Testament." Parturiunt montes ! Dr. 
 Carson is about to touch the subject with the hand of a master — 
 and to settle the question ! 
 
 Let us look at his results. He proves abundantly that Xouw 
 can be applied to bathing by immersion, which I never denied. 
 Does he prove that it cannot be applied to sprinkling ? Not at 
 all. He asserts it, but nowhere proves it. I assert the contrary, 
 and this is my proof: Porphyry asserts, in libel, de antro 
 Nympharum, that it was customary for married women to purify 
 maidens by sprinkling or affusion, before marriages, with water 
 taken from fountains and living springs. Photius tells us that the 
 water used for this purpose at Athens, was brought in a pitcher 
 from certain fountains which he specifies, by the oldest male boy 
 of the family. Here bathing by immersion, is excluded, and yet 
 the water thus used is called Xourpov, or Xourpa vujuKpixa, and 
 Zonaras defines XouTpa thus, to, sSj XoCjv dyovra tyjs dxctdaptfiag. 
 Those things which produce the removal of impurity, that is, 
 means of purification. The boy who brought the water was 
 called XouTpoQopoj. 
 
 Again, Basil applies the term Xourpo'v to a clinic baptism by 
 
§ 66. DR. carson's dissertation on AOY'O. 209 
 
 sprinkling or affusion. The prsetor Ariantheus, converted by his 
 wife, was also baptized by her on his dying bed. Of this Basil says, 
 letter 386, — He washed away all the stains of his soul at the close 
 of his life by the washing of regeneration, Xourpoj 'xaXiyysvsdictg. 
 There was no bathing by immersion ; but sprinkling or affusion. 
 
 Again, in Corpus Hist. Byzant., Nicephoras Gregoras, Lib. 24, 
 p. 573, Venice, 1729, uses Xourpov to denote the complex rite of 
 purification, including unction and the influence of the Holy 
 Spirit. " Since it is customary with men to wash themselves 
 with water and to anoint themselves with oil, God has joined to 
 the oil and the water the grace of his Spirit, and made them (i. e. 
 oil, water, and spirit) the cleansing of regeneration," Xourpov 
 flr'aXj^ysvstriaj — anointing with oil is a part of the process of purifi- 
 cation — it is no part of bathing, and here Xourpo'v must be taken in 
 the most generic sense given to it by Photius, that is, a system of 
 means of purification or a process of purification. 
 
 Dr. Carson hints that the Xourrjpss in the temples might be for 
 bathing the hands, and the viTtlripss for washing them ! p. 73. 
 Here is the force of theory with a witness. Let us then listen to 
 Julius Pollux, Seg. 46, Lib. 10, Cap. 10. The caption is, con- 
 cerning vessels used in washing hands and face, •ztfs^i' tojv sv rw 
 viiers(f6ai (fxsvuv. 
 
 It is necessary, he proceeds, for one arising from sleep to wash 
 his face, to if^(}<i(j)ifov ct'TrovjVTSff'^ai — here is no bathing as yet. 
 Let a boy, he proceeds, bring an ewer or pitcher, and pour out 
 fresh water xam Xs/3r)<roj 73 Xou<ni^iou tivoV, in a vessel or wash- 
 basin. He justifies himself in using Xouttj^iov in this sense by 
 quoting a line from Anaxilas, in which he says, in baths ruTg (3a- 
 \ctvsioi$ there are no wash-basins (XourTj^ia), i. e. vessels for wash- 
 ing hands and face. Can XoJw mean to bathe by its own force, 
 when XouTTj^iov is thus used to denote a vessel in which to wash 
 (vjVreiv) hands and face, and not only so, but is placed in pointed 
 antithesis to bathing vessels ? for in baths surely there are" vessels 
 for bathing, though there are none for face and hand-washing. 
 Pollux also gives Xovtyj^ (the word quoted by me from the Fathers), 
 as a synonyme of Xoutij^iov to denote a wash-basin, for washing 
 
210 DR. carson's dissertation on AOY*n- § 66. 
 
 hands and face. All idea of face and hand bathing is therefore 
 excluded. 
 
 Dr. Carson says, p. 67, that " XoiJw, like our word bathe, ap- 
 plies to animal bodies only — we do not speak of bathing cloth." 
 
 Nevertheless, Origen applies XouTpov to wood, and Gregory 
 Nazianzen applies Xouca; to clothes, and to a couch — and Eupolis, 
 see Pollux, applies ctXourfja (i. e. want of washing) to a cloak. 
 Surely these are not animal bodies. 
 
 Again, Dr. Carson says, p. 67, in order to justify the applica- 
 tion of v»Vtw to the whole body it must be all successively wash- 
 ed — as viVtw involves friction or hand-washing. And yet Euri- 
 pides applies it to bathing a whole herd of oxen in the sea, where 
 friction, hand-washing, etc., are all out of the question. Strabo, 
 too, applies it to the bathing of Diana in a river, where there was 
 no probability of hand-washing. 
 
 Perhaps I have said enough to illustrate the nature of " the 
 learned remarks of his own," which Dr. Carson has added, and 
 his mode of " touching the subject with the hand of a master." 
 I could add much more, did my room permit, and the patience of 
 my readers allow. I will not complete the quotation with which 
 I began, by adding, " Nascitur ridiculus mus," but only state 
 that I see no reason either to add to or take from my statement, 
 after all of Dr. Carson's effort to settle the subject. 
 
 Dr. Carson says, I added no learned observations of my own. 
 I answer, the case seemed to me too plain to need any. Nothing 
 is easier than to make a useless parade of learning. But it is of 
 no use to waste time by needless citations to prove points which 
 no one denies, and at the same time to deny points without proof, 
 on which the whole question hangs. 
 
 I conclude then by saying, that Xouw of its own force denotes to 
 wash, or to purify ; that in fact it is more generally used to de- 
 note a washing or purifying of the whole body, whether by sprink- 
 ling, affusion, or immersion — but that it is also applied to wash- 
 ing hands, face, and feet — also to wood, clothes, couches, cloaks, 
 etc., though but rarely in this last sense. 
 
 NjVtw applies generally to washing of hands, face, and feet, 
 
§ 67. DR. Carson's attack on the biblical argument. 211 
 
 also sometimes, but more rarely, to bathing the whole body, in 
 the case of both men and animals. It is also often used by the 
 Fathers, with its compounds, to denote the cleansing of the mind 
 from sin, excluding the idea of hand-washing. Sometimes 
 also it is applied to the washing of cups, vessels (rfxtu^), and 
 tables. 
 
 nXi^'vw is generally applied to clothes — but also to the body and 
 all its parts, also to cups, metals, and various animal sub- 
 stances. Proof of all these statements is at hand, and could be 
 produced, if needed. But I think that the case is clear enough 
 as it is. 
 
 Dr. Carson's principles and general assertions, as to the 
 Fathers, have passed under review ; let us next briefly notice his 
 application of them to the details of my argument. I shall now 
 consider the manner in which he has assailed the Biblical argu- 
 ment. 
 
 § 67. Dr. Carson's Attack on the Biblical Argument. 
 
 The Biblical argument is contained in §§ 8 — 18. The course 
 of the argument is this : (1.) In John iii. 25, the expression, a 
 dispute concerning purifying (xadapjCfjiou), proves that xa^apitf/xoV 
 and (SaiTTK^^os are synonymous, when applied to the rite of bap- 
 tism. (2.) This view explains the expectation that the Messiah 
 would baptize, for it was foretold that he should purify, but not 
 that he should immerse. (3.) In the baptism of the Holy Spirit, 
 the subject, the agent, the means, and the effect, demand the idea 
 to purify, and exclude the idea to immerse, for the subject is the 
 spirit of man, the agent the divine spirit, the means spiritual, and 
 the effect purity ; and in such relations the idea to immerse is ab- 
 surd ; purify is the only reasonable sense. (4.) The end of bap- 
 tism is to indicate sacrificial purification, i. e. the remission of 
 sins. We should naturally expect to find this idea in its name, 
 and we do find it so used as clearly to indicate that it has the sense 
 xa^a^itf/xoff, i. e. sacrificial purification or remission of sins. (5.) 
 
212 DR. carson's attack on the biblical argument. § 67. 
 
 In the expression, divers baptisms, in Heb. ix. 10, the word (Ba-j^. 
 TK^lxoi is obviously taken in a generic sense to denote Mosaic puri- 
 fications of any kind. (6.) The baptism of couches, in Mark 
 vii. 4, 8, and the baptism expected of Christ, in Luke xi. 38, 
 were obviously purifications merely, and not immersions. (7.) 
 In speaking of the nightly baptism of Judith (Jud. vii. 7) in the 
 camp of Holofernes, no doubt a mere purification is spoken of 
 without respect to mode, and not an immersion. (8.) In referring 
 to a baptism from a dead body (Sirach xxxi. 25), no dcub' the 
 word is used in the generic sense to denote purification. (9.) 
 The account of purification from sin in the baptism of Paul 
 (Acts xxvi. 16), and Peter's effort to guard the mind against the 
 idea of mere external purification, and to direct the mind to the 
 purging of the conscience by the atonement, show that purifica- 
 tion was the usual religious sense of the word. (10.) In that 
 part of the Greek language, in which alone we ought to look for 
 decisive evidence on this subject, there is no opposing evidence to 
 be found ; hence the case is decided in favor of the sense to purify, 
 and against the sense to immerse. 
 
 In weighing the force of this argument it is necessary to re- 
 member, that, whatever the practice was in fact, even if it was 
 immersion, it does not in any sense disprove this argument as to the 
 meaning of the word ; but only shows that under a command to 
 purify, they did in fact purify by immersion. But I do not at all 
 concede that in the Apostolic days it was customary to baptize 
 by immersion. The fact, I am persuaded, was directly the re- 
 verse. But I mention this consideration, that no illogical imagi- 
 nations or associations of ideas may entangle the mind or break 
 the force of the argument. 
 
 Let it also be borne in mind that the argument is strictly 
 cumulative, and that its force is to be tested by the coherence and 
 accumulated force of its parts. 
 
 How, then, does Dr. Carson attempt to answer it ? First, by 
 attempting to break it up into disconnected fragments ; then, in 
 each fragment trying to prove that the highest possible evidence 
 
§ 67. DR. Carson's attack on the biblical argument. 213 
 
 of my position is not given ; that the sense immerse is possible ; and 
 then bringing in what he calls the testimony of the word ^a-Trn'^w. 
 The illogical nature of this whole process I have fully shown. 
 I have also, by evidence most unanswerable, shown that the word 
 /ja-Trn'^w does not in these cases testify as he alleges, but that it 
 testifies directly against him, and most fully and decidedly in my 
 favor. Hence, 
 
 1. On the ground on which I first put the argument, i. e. the 
 principles of moral and cumulative evidence, it remains un- 
 answered and with unbroken force. 
 
 2. On Dr. Carson's own ground it remains unanswered and 
 with unbroken force. I add, 
 
 3. That the truth of every main point in the argument can be 
 sustained by direct philological evidence from the Fathers, and 
 that to any required degree of strength. 
 
 To illustrate this last assertion, let us consider the leading 
 points of the argument. 
 
 1. Dr. Carson assails my argument from John iii. 25. He 
 denies that the " question" spoken of had any reference to 
 baptism at all. For example, on p. 432, he asserts that the 
 question spoken of " was not caused by the concurrence of two 
 claims to baptize ; for these claims are never mentioned with re- 
 gard to the dispute. If we had not the document in our hands, 
 we should be led to think from Mr. Beecher's representation, that 
 the dispute was between the disciples of John and the disciples of 
 Jesus with respect to conflicting claims between their masters ;" on 
 p. 430, he says, " the dispute had no relation to the baptism of 
 John and Jesus ; the dispute does not imply the existence of the 
 baptism of Jesus, or even of himself." In various other forms 
 and with great positiveness he repeats it. He also sharply as- 
 serts that the question concerning purification was not a question 
 concerning baptism. On the other hand Chrysostom, Gregory of 
 Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theophylact, expressly testify 
 that the question concerning ■purification was simply and only a 
 question concerning baptism. Chrysostom thus speaks, " That 
 
214 DR. Carson's attack on the biblical argument. § 67. 
 
 the baptisms, i. e. of John and Jesus, did not differ in claims the 
 context shows. What is this ? There was a dispute between 
 the disciples of John and a Jew concerning purification. For the 
 disciples of John, being jealous of the disciples of Christ, and of 
 Christ himself, when they saw them baptizing, began to dispute 
 with those who were baptized, as if their own baptism was superior 
 in its claims to that of Christ, and taking one of the baptized they 
 tried to convince him, but did not succeed." In like manner, Theo- 
 phylact says, on Jn. iii. 25, '^ syivsro ^7}Tri(fis <:fspi rov (3a<jrri(fiJ.aTos. 
 There was a dispute concerning baptism, between the disciples 
 of John, moved with rivalry, and a certain Jew. For the Jew 
 placed the claims of the baptism of Christ before those of John, but 
 the disciples of John gave the precedence to the claims of their 
 master's baptism." Thus it appears, beyond all doubt, that the 
 question concerning purification was simply and only a question 
 concerning baptism. Nor is this all ; as if to make assurance 
 doubly sure, Theophylact, after having thus called the question a 
 question concerning baptism, and then stated its point, proceeds 
 next to call it a question concerning purification, and then to add 
 as its synonyme baptism. He thus expressly gives ^cLitrid^LOi as 
 an equivalent of xo^a^itfjui-oV. For, after stating the subject of the 
 question just as I do, he proceeds to say of the disciples of John, 
 and the Jews, ^7]T7)(fa.\T£s Ss m'Spi xa^apitfjaou rjroi l3oi<jc'Ti(f^a,TQs 
 rfpo(iia(fi Tw auTOJv SiSadxaXu), " disputing concerning purification, 
 that is, baptism, they came to their master." Nor are these 
 words . equivalent merely as names of the same rite, as Dr. 
 Carson suggests, but they are equivalent in idea, as I have else- 
 where often and fully shown. Hence purification is not a mere 
 name of the rite, like " illumination," " anointing," " the gift," 
 "grace," "the seal," &c. It is the meaning of the word 
 baptism ; and baptism is purification, and not immersion. 
 
 2. Again, Dr. Carson treats with very great contempt the 
 second point, that this view explains, by a reference to Old Tes- 
 tament prophecies, the expectation that the Messiah would 
 baptize. This I illustrated by a reference to Malachi. He 
 
§ 67. DR. Carson's attack on the biblical argument. 215 
 
 thinks the argument so contemptible that it " deserves no atten- 
 tion." " It requires more than the patience of Job to be able to 
 mention such an argument without expressing strong feeling." 
 " This argument manifests such a want of discrimination, and 
 confusion of things which differ, that the mind on which it has 
 force must be essentially deficient in those powers that qualify 
 for the discussion of critical questions." 
 
 What, then, are the facts ? They are these. The Fathers, 
 in commenting on those passages in the Old Testament, in which 
 it is predicted that the Messiah should purify, do regard them as 
 predictions that he should baptize, and state explicitly that the 
 words (Suirri^u and xa^a^i'^w mean the same thing. Of this, 
 Basil's comment on Is. iv. 4, § 55, is an unanswerable proof. In 
 the Old Testament it is said concerning the Messiah sxt^XuvsT and 
 ixxu^a^isT. In the New, John says ^aitriifsi, and Basil says they 
 mean the same thing ; and then defines (SaitrKt^^a as meaning 
 xa6a^i(fli6g. 
 
 Nor is this all. Eusebius, of Cesarea, sustains the same view. 
 Commenting on this passage, he says that the preposition sv is 
 used in the causative sense, when applied to the Holy Spirit, not 
 only in this passage, but in the New Testament too ; for he says 
 that the expressions sv m'vsvixari x^idsug xai sv itvsvixwn xaC(fS(^s, by 
 the spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning, in Is. iv. 4, 
 are equivalent to the expressions sv "Trvsu/xan ayioj xai iru^i, by the 
 Holy Spirit and fire in the New Testament. Hence he pointedly 
 excludes the idea of immersion in the Holy Spirit, and gives in 
 its place purification by the Holy Spirit. The whole comment 
 of Eusebius is this : " Observe whether this passage is not, to a 
 remarkable degree, coincident in sense with the evangelic testi- 
 mony concerning our Saviour. ' He shall baptize you with the 
 Holy Ghost and with firej' for the expression ' by the spirit of 
 judgment and the spirit of burning,' does not at all diflfer in sense 
 from the expression by 'the Holy Spirit and fire.' In the one case 
 (Is. iv. 4) fiery words reproving them, produced a purification 
 
216 DR. Carson's attack on the biblical argument. § 67. 
 
 r»v) of sins, and in like manner, of our Saviour in the 
 gospel it is said, he shall purify dowifT'Kfsi), not with water but by 
 the Holy Spirit and fire." 
 
 In regarding Is. iv. 4, as a prophecy of baptism, Origen, 
 Eusebius, Basil, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theodoret, all 
 coincide. And just as clearly do Theodoret and Cyril of Alex- 
 andria regard Mai. iii. 3, to which I referred, as a prophecy of 
 baptism ; and the same is true of other passages in the Old Testa- 
 ment, in which it is foretold that the Messiah shall purify. 
 
 Inasmuch, then, as it was foretold that the Messiah should 
 purify, and inasmuch as purify and baptize are, by the testimony 
 of the Fathers, synonymous, it was of course foretold that the 
 Messiah should baptize. And predictions that he should baptize, 
 would of course awaken an expectation that he would baptize. 
 Hence this expectation is accounted for as I stated. 
 
 In what manner he should baptize is not foretold, and no doubt 
 all these predictions had primary reference to spiritual purifica- 
 tion, and could have been fulfilled had no external rite of purifica- 
 tion been ordained. But so soon as a rite of purification was es- 
 tablished by the forerunner of the Messiah, it would at once call 
 up to the minds of all, the great purifier, so long foretold, so long 
 expected, and raise the inquiry, Is John he ? If not, why does 
 he purify ? 
 
 And when the attention was thus aroused, it would of course 
 lead John to unfold to the people the nature of that spiritual 
 purification, of which his purification by water was but a type. 
 
 What struck my mind, was this. The language of the New 
 Testament, as to baptism by the Messiah, is exactly such as is 
 used in the Old Testament with reference to purification by the 
 Messiah. In the Old Testament, a purification by the Spirit and 
 by fire was spoken of; in the New, a baptism by the Holy Spirit 
 and by fire. An immersion in the Holy Spirit and fire was 
 manifestly absurd ; hence I could not resist the conviction that 
 the Old Testament and New Testament modes of expression were 
 
§ 67. DR. CARSO:^'s ATTACK ON THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT. 217 
 
 equivalent,:. And it appears that this mode of reasoning led me to 
 the truth, notwhhstanding Dr. Carson is pleased to treat it with 
 such utter contempt. ^ 
 
 Indeed, I would not fear to risk the whole question on the com- 
 ments on Is. iv. 4, of the six Fathers named above. In some 
 minor particulars they disagree, some referring the purification 
 by fire to this world, others to the world to come, some to literal 
 fire, others to spiritual, but all agreeing in one point, that to 
 baptize and to purify mean precisely the same thing. Even, 
 therefore, though Dr. Carson should continue to despise this argu- 
 ment, still the truth will nevertheless continue to be justified of 
 her children. 
 
 3. The testimony of the Fathers on the third point, the baptism 
 of the Holy Spirit, is no less abundant. All the evidence pro- 
 duced on the last point applies with equal force to this, for it is to 
 the baptism of the Holy Spirit, that they refer these predictions of 
 purification in the days of the Messiah. Moreover, they saw 
 types of this baptism in the fire that came down from heaven and 
 consumed the sacrifice of Elijah, and in the fire kindled by 
 Nehemiah, according to the 2d book of Maccabees, by sprinkling 
 water. 
 
 Thus, said they, in the baptism of fire, a divine and heavenly 
 fire descends from above, and enters into the heart, and purges 
 out the dross of sin, and makes us pure. 
 
 Nor is this view sustained by the Fathers alone. It originates 
 from the very nature of things. The Holy Spirit is neither 
 figuratively nor literally a river, lake, or pool, but a living, intel- 
 ligent being, from whom an illuminating and purifying influence 
 goes forth, as light and heat from the sun. Hence we are not 
 spoken of as immersed in him, but purified by him ; hence, too, 
 it is proper to speak of his influences as poured out or descending 
 as the rain, or going forth as the light or fire. 
 
 A few illustrations of these views from Cyril of Alexandria 
 must suflice. He refers, Mai. iii. 1 — 3, to the baptism of Christ, 
 and thus proceeds : " This divine fire from heaven, that is, gracious 
 • 10 
 
218 Dii. Carson's attack on the biblical argument. § 67. 
 
 influence, through the Holy Spirit, when it enters into the heart, 
 then, then indeed it cleanses away the pollutions of our former 
 transgress^hs, and makes us pure (y.sxa&a^^i^jo-^s)- This divine 
 and spiritual lire the inspired John clearly announced, saying, 
 " I indeed purify ((SwrrTi^u) you with water, but he shall purify 
 you with the Holy Spirit and fire." Here the fiery influence is 
 conceived of as coming from the Holy Spirit, and entering and 
 purifying tlie heart. Moreover, Cyril here agrees Avith Origen, 
 Basil, and others, in considering the language of John as referring 
 to and taken from those passages in the Old Testament which 
 predict of the Messiah, purification, and that alone. And Cyril 
 oft repeats the same ideas in other parts of his works. But his 
 comment on Is. iv. 4, is still more striking. He first refers the 
 passage, as Basil does, to the baptism of Christ, and then explains 
 the spirit of burning thus : '•' We call it grace which comes into 
 us at the holy baptism, not without the agency of the Holy Spirit. 
 For we are not baptized by mere water, nor by the ashes of a 
 heifer (indeed we are sprinkled for the purity of the flesh alone, 
 as says the blessed Paul), but by the Holy Spirit, and by divine 
 and spiritual fire, which consumes all the pollutions of wickedness 
 in us, and melts out the pollution of sin. Such a coming of our 
 Saviour also, another of the holy prophets foretold, saying, " Be- 
 hold he shall come as a refiner's fire, and as fuller's soap, and he 
 shall sit and purify as gold and as silver." His reference to 
 baptizing by the ashes of a heifer I have already noticed ; and I 
 now remark that through the whole passage he refers to a divine 
 influence proceeding from God, which he calls spiritual fire, itup- 
 vor^To'v, which enters the heart and consumes and melts out the 
 pollution of sin. He also in this passage unites both Is. iv. 4 
 and Mai. iii. 1 — 3, as predictions of the baptism by the Holy 
 Ghost and by fire, to be introduced by Christ. 
 
 But how does Dr. Carson hold his ground against my position, 
 that the sense immerse is never transferred in any language to 
 denote effects like the agency of the Holy Spirit ? By giving me 
 a lesson in Rhetoric. Let us hear it. " Mr. Beecher has adopted 
 
§ 67. DR. CARSON'S ATTACK ON THE BIBLICAL ARGUMENT. 219 
 
 some of my philosophical doctrines. I will give him another 
 lesson which will prevent him from again alleging such an ob- 
 jection. Metaphor is not bound to find examples to justify its 
 particular figures, but may indulge itself wherever it finds re- 
 semblance. It gives words a new application, but does not invest 
 them with a new meaning. It is not then subject to the law of 
 literal language, which for the sense of every word needs the 
 authority of use. This I have established in my treatise on the 
 figures of speech, in opposition to the common doctrine of the 
 rhetoricians. With respect to the point in hand, I would maintain 
 my ground if a single other example of the figurative use of this 
 word could not be adduced." I do not doubt it. Anything sooner 
 than to admit that ftantTl^o) means to purify. But with all due 
 deference to my teacher in rhetoric, I would say, that this lesson 
 does not exclude my objection. He says metaphor may indulge 
 itself wherever it finds resemhlance. This is well said : it is the 
 truth. But my objection is that there is no resemhlance between 
 the operations of the Holy Spirit and immersion. The Holy 
 Spirit illuminates and purifies. Immersion as such does neither. 
 It signifies mode, and nothing else — and it may pollute as well as 
 purify. For this reason, I deny the propriety of its application to 
 the Holy Ghost, and claim the sense to purify, for this is his glori- 
 ous, grand, peculiar work. Dr. Carson's lesson in rhetoric, there- 
 fore, is of no avail. 
 
 4. No less clear is the testimony of the Fathers as to the fourth 
 point, namely, that f^a'XrKfiicc denotes sacrificial purification, or 
 the remission of sins. Indeed, I have adduced already so much 
 of their testimony on this point, that to add anything more is 
 needless. See §§ 25, 26, pp. 61-68, and §§ 53, 54, pp. 160-170. 
 Dr. Carson is pleased to treat with great contempt my remarks in 
 § 12, pp. 28-31, designed to illustrate the difference between 
 sacrificial and moral purification. " Mr. Beecher," he says, 
 "gives us a dissertation on purification which is no more to the 
 purpose than a treatise on logarithms." That Dr. Carson did 
 
220 DR. Carson's attack on the biblical argument. § 67. 
 
 not comprehend the nature or importance of the distinction made 
 by me, or its extensive bearings in the discussion of the whole 
 question, I freely admit. But ignorance and contempt of what 
 we do not understand, are not arguments. 
 
 So far is it from being true that my distinction is nothing to 
 the purpose, that on the other hand, without it, it is impossible 
 that much of the language of the Fathers on baptism should be 
 understood at all. Sprinkling with blood is not an immersion, nor 
 is it a washing, nor is it in the common sense of the term a purifi- 
 cation, for blood of itself defiles. But the shedding of blood 
 secures the remission of sins, and the sprinkling of blood is an 
 expiation, that is, a sacrificial purification. And if it were not 
 for this view, the language of the Fathers, when they speak of 
 sprinklings of blood as baptisms, could not be understood. But 
 take this view and all is plain. Indeed, it furnishes an argument 
 against the sense immerse, of irresistible power. And although 
 this is not much to Dr. Carson's purpose, it is very much to mine. 
 Let any one trace this usage out, in all its applications to the 
 baptism of blood, and the Mosaic and heathen expiations, and he 
 will then be able to judge, both of the indispensable necessity and 
 extensive application of the principles laid down in the disserta- 
 tion, in § 12, of which Dr. Carson speaks so contemptuously. 
 
 5. On the fifth point, the divers baptisms spoken of in Heb. ix. 
 10, the evidence from the Fathers is absolutely overwhelming. 
 As we have seen, they include without hesitation all the sprink- 
 lings of the Mosaic ritual, whether with blood or with the ashes 
 of a heifer. Indeed, one passage from Ambrose, of itself, were 
 there no other, would be enough to settle this question for ever. 
 Apol. David, § 59 : " Per hyssopi fasciculum adspergebatur agni 
 sanguine, qui mundari volebat typico baptismate." He who de- 
 sired to be purified with a typical baptism, was sprinkled with 
 the blood of a lamb, by means of a bunch of hyssop. Compare 
 now with this, other similar cases in § 53, pp. 160-167, and all 
 occasion for doubt must cease. 
 
§ 67. DR. Carson's attack on the biblical argument. 221 
 
 These are the leading and most important points in the biblical 
 argument, and on them all, the testimony of the Fathers is as full 
 and explicit as could be desired. 
 
 I was peculiarly struck with the commentary of Theophylact 
 on John iii. 25. I had not read it when I gave my view in § 8, 
 pp. 22-25. And yet the coincidence is nearly as perfect as if 
 I had taken his exposition as the basis of my own. It was pecu- 
 liarly gratifying to me to find the argument from this passage so 
 clearly and fully sustained by the Fathers, as it was by means 
 of this passage, that the Holy Spirit, as I humbly trust, first gave 
 me an insight into the true meaning of this word. Dr. Carson's 
 only argument against this view is a series of unproved assertions ; 
 that the question about purifying was not a question about bap- 
 tism, and that it had no reference to the claims of Jesus or John ; 
 and that the disputants said nothing to John as to the question 
 about purification, but stated one entirely different. In all this, 
 not only are the Fathers against Dr. Carson, but the most mature 
 results of modern criticism are against him. Schleusner, Wahl, 
 Vater, Rosenmiiller, De Wette, Bretschncider, -Kuinoel, and even 
 Professor Ripley himself, are against him on these points. They 
 all agree that baptism was the subject of the question ; and 
 Rosenmiiller. Vater, Kuinoel, and Schleusner, give baptism as the 
 translation of xa^apjCixoG". Doederlin takes the same view. The 
 following translation of the passage will present the true sense 
 and the argument at once to the eye. 
 
 " After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land 
 of Judea, and there he tarried with them and 'purified. And 
 Jolin was purifying in iEnon, near Salim, because there was 
 much water there, and they came to him and were purified. 
 Therefore, there arose a question concerning purifiication between 
 some of the disciples of John and the Jews, and they came unto 
 John and said unto him. Rabbi, he that was with thee beyond 
 Jordan, to whom thou barest witness, behold the same purifiieth, 
 and all men come to him !" As if Christ was improperly drawing 
 men away from John's purification. In reply to all this, John 
 
222 DR. carson's attack on the biblical argument. § 67. 
 
 clearly avowed the superiority of Christ to himself, and justified 
 his course. 
 
 Having considered the chief points, let us now review the re- 
 mainder. 
 
 6. As to the baptism of couches, in Mark vii. 4, we have seen 
 that the Fathers not only speak of this, but of baptizing men on 
 couches ; so that all possibility of evading the sense to purify is 
 taken away. Moreover, in the Apostolic Const, vi. 6, a certain 
 Jewish sect is spoken of, concerning whom it is said, " unless 
 they baptize themselves daily they eat not, still further, unless 
 they purify — xa^a^wtfjv — w4th water their couches, and plates, and 
 cups, and goblets, and seats, they will not use them at all." 
 That the author of these words did not believe in the immersion 
 of couches, is plain from the fact that he obviously takes pains to 
 use xadai^c,) in place of /ija'TTTi'^w. That in this passage there is a 
 direct reference to Mark vii. 4, is too plain to need proof. It is 
 no less plain that in Luke xi. 38, the Fathers regarded the bap- 
 tism required of Jesus as a purification, and not an immersion, for 
 Theophylact says of Christ, that he was deriding their foolish cus- 
 tom of purifying themselves before they ate, and takes particular 
 pains to substitute xa&a^'i^u) in place of /Sa-rr'Ti^w. "Deriding 
 their foolish custom, I mean their purifying — xadapl^srf&ai — them- 
 selves before eating, he teaches that they ought to purify their 
 souls by good works." He then adds, for washing the hands — 
 vlitTSddai — by water, purifies the body only, not the soul. This 
 use of viVTSC^ai clearly denotes that Theophylact regarded the 
 baptism expected of Jesus as a washing of the hands. More 
 proof could be added, but surely this is enough. 
 
 No one can any longer doubt what is meant by baptizing from a 
 dead body, in Sirachxxxi. 25, after reading in Cyril of Alexandria 
 of a baptism by the ashes of a heifer. Cyril also uses xa^ap(fig 
 in the same relations. Ashes with water is a purification — xaQa^cfis 
 — to the defiled. Here, too, I remark, in passing, is an idiom of 
 the same kind as that noticed in § 52, in which purifying agents 
 are called baptisms. Here ashes with water is said to be a puri- 
 
§ 67. DK. CAKSON's attack on the biblical ARGUIVIENT. 223 
 
 ficalion, i. c. a baptism. Dr. Carson's objection from Xour^ov I 
 have fully answered. 
 
 Nor is there any reason to doubt the sacrificial sense alleged 
 by me in Acts xxii. 16; and 1 Pet. iii. 21. Arise, be puri- 
 fied or expiated, is the import of the command, and refers mani- 
 festly to the rite. Wash away thy sins, refers as plainly to the 
 result prayed for when the name of God was invoked, and which 
 is shadowed forth by the rite, and in true believers comes to pass, 
 i. e. the purification of the mind from sin. Dr. Carson says, 
 this makes the pardon of sins to be conferred at baptism. So it 
 is, if forgiveness is prayed for in faith. Sins are washed away by 
 calling on the Lord for pardon, and the same is true of sins com- 
 mitted after baptism. We need forgiveness of sins daily, and 
 daily we pray for it and receive it ; and at the hour of baptism 
 sins are no less forgiven, if the prayer of faith is offered, than at 
 any other time, and the external rite is designed to announce and 
 show forth this fact. This is not baptismal regeneration, nor any- 
 thing like it. The usus loquendi is plainly on my side. Dr. 
 Carson's philosophical and theological objections are of no weight. 
 As to 1 Pet. iii. 21, the Fathers are decidedly against Dr. Car- 
 son. He says, " Noah and his family were saved by being buried 
 in the water of the flood : and after the flood they emerged as 
 rising from the grave." Now, it is not true, in fact, that Noah 
 and his family were ever buried in the waters of the flood, nor 
 that they emerged from them, nor did the Fathers ever so regard 
 it. The wicked were buried in the waters of the flood. Noah 
 and his family, according to the Fathers, were purified, and thus 
 saved. See § 28, 6. So also Cyprian says, " Qui cum Noe 
 in Area non fuerunt, non tantum purgati et salvati per aquamnon 
 sunt, sed statim illo diluvio perierunt."' Those who were not in 
 the ark with Noah, not only were not purified and savedhy water, 
 but perished at once by that deluge. According to the Fathers, 
 those in the ark were saved by purification, those out of it were 
 destroyed by immersion. All this perfectly accords with the usus 
 
r2'2-i DR. CARSON 'S REPLY TO THE FATHERS. § 68. 
 
 loquendi of [Sa'n'TKf^a which I have clearly established, and with 
 the obvious import of the passage. 
 
 § GS. Dr. Carsoyi's Reply to the Argujiients from the Fathers. 
 
 Dr. Carson's mode of meeting my arguments from the Fathers 
 (in § 21) next demands notice. " Well, how does Mr. Beecher 
 bring out his proof? If the writings of the Fathers prove that 
 they understood this word in Mr. Beecher's sense, must not Mr. 
 Beecher prove this by alleging examples of the use of the word 
 in this sense ? Common Sense, What do you say ? But Mr. 
 Beecher attempts no such thing. He does not appeal to the use of 
 the word by the Fathers, but to other words applied by the Fathers 
 to tlie same ordinance." And yet my argument stands thus. " 1. 
 The earlier Christian writers do not so often use the word fSwrfTi- 
 ^w, as some synonyme derived from the sense to purify, e. g. 
 «vay£vvaw as before stated. 2. They often use /Sa-TrriCixo^ in the 
 legal and sacrificial sense, so as to exclude any idea hut xadctpKfjxos. 
 3. They sometimes in describing the rite use xadaipw or xa^apj^w 
 alone." How then does Dr. Carson dare to say that I attempt no 
 such thing as alleging examples of the use of the word ? Do 
 not the three examples from Chrysostom and Theophylact each 
 contain the v.'ord ,Su<Ti(fix6g 1 And do I not argue to prove that 
 it means purification ? All this was before Dr. Carson's eyes. 
 Nay, after «ix pages, he refers to it, and tries to answer it. Dr. 
 Carson may be able to explain all tliis. I frankly confess I can- 
 not. After this false statement of my argument, he proceeds : 
 " Now I do not charge my opponent with dishonesty in the use 
 of this argument. I do him the justice to believe that he is the 
 dupe of his own sophistry. But it is a sophistry childishly weak. 
 I have already disposed of this argument. It assumes as an axiom 
 that Vrords that apply to the same ordinance are identical in signi- 
 fication." To this I reply, I make no such assumption. My ar- 
 gument is moral and cumulative. If ^a-TTi^w means to purify, 
 we should expect to find ?ca^a^i^w and other synonymous words 
 
§ 68. DR. cakson's reply to the fathers. ' 225 
 
 used in its place. It would be strange if we did not. It could 
 be used as an 'argument against us if it were not so. If we do, 
 then this class of facts is as we should reasonably expect to find 
 them. And this in its place and relations is a true and powerful 
 part of a cumulative argument. Another view of the matter is 
 indeed possible, for I never denied that one word could be used in 
 the place of another, and yet not be synonymous with it. Thus 
 in arguing on John iii. 25, there arose a question between some 
 of John's disciples and the Jews about purifying. I first prove 
 by the context that this dispute related in fact to baptism ; and, 
 inasmuch as xu^a^Kfij.ov is used in its place, I infer in view of all 
 the facts of the case, that xk&oL^dig and /Sa-TrTKr/xo^are synonymous, 
 because all probabilities tend this way. I then remark — " It is 
 of no avail to talk of possible senses. The question is not what 
 is possible, but what is a rational inference from a fair view of 
 the facts of the case ; and this I do not hesitate to say is that /Sa-r- 
 TiCixoV and xa^a^jtffxo^ are synonymous." In this language I 
 plainly intimate that another view is possible, but not probable. 
 Hear now Dr. Carson : " I could admit that purification here re- 
 fers to baptism specifically, and still defeat President Beecher. 
 He has labored in vain. He builds on a false first principle. 
 He assumes that if two words refer to the same ordinance, they 
 must be identical in meaning. Nothing is more unfounded — 
 palpably unfounded. There are situations in which two words 
 may be interchanged at the option of the writer, while they are 
 not perfectly synonymous. They may so far agree that they 
 may be equally fitted to fill a situation, while each has a distinct 
 meaning. This is so obvious a truth, that I am perfectly as- 
 tonished that it should lie hid from the President of the College 
 of Illinois," pp. 432-33. To this I reply, I had well weighed 
 the principle before writing my articles. It is simply the second 
 of Dr. Carson's canons of trial, as I have numbered them. No 
 man who had ever noticed the pomp and authority with which 
 Dr. Carson introduced it in his work on baptism as a profound 
 discovery, could ever forget it again. I shall not pretend to de- 
 
 10* 
 
226 DR. carson's reply to the fathers. § 68. 
 
 cide whether so profound a truth had lain hid from the world un- 
 til Dr. Carson arose. I shall not dare to afRrm that I had ever 
 thought of such a thing before reading the pages of Dr. Carson. 
 But surely after a repeated examination of his work on baptism, 
 my ignorance must have been dispersed. And yet in full view 
 of this canon, I dared to affirm, and do still affirm, that a rational 
 inference from a fair view of the facts of the case is, that /3a<7r- 
 TitfjxoV and xaSa^Kfixos are synonymous in John iii. 25, and /Sa-r- 
 Tj^w and xa&api^u in the passages from the Fathers. I was not 
 trying to render any other view impossible, but highly improlaUe, 
 and this I did accomplish ; and I have since shown by other evi- 
 dence that what is announced as highly probable, in view of all 
 the facts of these cases, is certainly true. 
 
 The fact is, that, through my whole argument, T avowedly re- 
 ject Dr. Carson's demands as to the degree of proof needed, and 
 claim decidedly and earnestly that I have proved the sense w^hich 
 I assign to the word, although another view is possible. I refuse 
 to be cut off from using the lower grades of moral evidence. I 
 refuse to give up the aid to be derived from a sense of propriety, 
 beauty, harmony, and verisimilitude. I refuse to introduce into 
 the world of rhetoric and taste, the iron rules of rigid demonstra- 
 tion. I insist that, in the interpretation of language, the mind 
 shall be left open to the full power of all the influences that con- 
 spired to form that language. For example, in the exquisite pas- 
 sage quoted from Proclus, to translate /Sa-Trrj^w immerse, to a sen- 
 sitive mind, alive to the beauties of style, would be worse than ten 
 thousand discords in music. I refuse to be haunted by the ghost 
 of an absurd canon of evidence through all the regions of poetry 
 and eloquence, and compelled to reject all probable evidence of 
 secondary senses, however striking, till I can succeed in hunting 
 up one case of the impossibility of the primary sense. Whether 
 I could find one such case or not, I did insist, and still do, that 
 the laws of moral and cumulative evidence shall have their right- 
 ful sway, and that language shall not be tortured, wrested, and 
 tormented for party purposes, and under the guise of zeal for the 
 
§ 68. DR. carson's reply to the fathers. 227 
 
 glory of God, and with charges of childish sophistry, or of uni- 
 tarian or papal reasoning, or even of blasphemy, and giving the 
 lie to the Holy Ghost, merely because I duly regard rational pro- 
 babilities in deciding the sense of words. As to the passages from 
 Chrysostom, Theophylact, and Gregory Naz., in which I assign 
 to (Ba'ffTK^ixos the sacrificial sense xa^^apjcTjxoV, I have fully vindi- 
 cated that sense in my remarks on the baptism of blood, in §§ 25, 
 26, pp. 61-68, and in the present article ; and to these remarks I 
 refer the reader. 
 
 Let us now consider what Dr. Carson, with his usual urbanity, 
 calls my original nonsense. Concerning this, he says, " He gives 
 us eight lines of philosophy. I will give a premium to any one, 
 who will produce me a greater quantity of absurdity in the same 
 compass, under the appearance of wisdom. The only merit this 
 nonsense can claim, is that it is original nonsense." With all 
 due deference to Dr. Carson's award of the palm of originality 
 to me, I am obliged to resign it to Basil, Clemens Alexandrinus, 
 Jerome, and others of the Fathers ; for what I stated as philosophi- 
 cally probable, I find by their writings that they had seen long 
 before me as a matter of fact. My eight lines of original non- 
 sense are these : *' In a case where analogical senses exist, one 
 external and material, and the other spiritual, it is natural that 
 they should run into each other, and terms applied to one, be 
 applied to the other. Thus if [oairri^cjj means to purify, then 
 there is natural purification and spiritual purification, or regene- 
 ration, and there would be a tendency to use avayswaw to denote 
 the latter idea, and also to transfer it to the external rite. And 
 at first it would be so done as merely to be the name of the rite, 
 and not to denote its actual efficacy."* Hear now Basil : " Since, 
 then, the Lord has connected both baptisms, namely, that from 
 water to repentance, and that from the Spirit to regeneration, are 
 
 * I retain this as I first published it. In this edition I state my original 
 meaning more fully in § 19, to obviate the misunderstandings and false 
 criticisms of Dr. Carann. 
 
228 DR. carson's reply to the fathers. § 68. 
 
 there not three significations of baptism, purification from filth, 
 regeneration (ava^swvjtfi^) by the Spirit, and trial, i. e. purgation 
 by the fire of judgment. Here now the senses are analogical. 
 Purification by water is external and material, purification by the 
 Spirit is internal and spiritual, that is, it is regeneration. Hence 
 also /^acrrjcf/j-oj assumes that sense, i. e. regeneration is one of its 
 meanings: so Basil expressly testifies. Again, this name regene- 
 ration was transferred to denote the external rite, and yet so 
 transferred as to be merely the name of the rite and not to denote 
 its actual efficacy. Of this, the mere fact that it was applied to 
 Christ, is proof enough. That he had no sin, and needed no 
 spiritual purification, they all with one voice affirm, and yet they 
 fully speak of him as regenerated. What sense is here possible 
 but the sense baptize ? Clemens Alexand., speaking of the 
 baptism of Christ, says, rfTJiu-SPov dvaysv^ridslg o Xpi(fr6g, Christ, 
 being regenerated to-day, etc., and in the context interchanges 
 that mode of expression with ^wxTi^ofs^svog — so Jerome says of 
 Christ that he was born of a virgin — and born again (renatus), 
 of a virgin — i. e. John the Baptist. All then that I stated is true. 
 jSairTKfixos, i. e. purification, has analogical senses, one external 
 and material, the other internal and spiritual. Spiritual purifica- 
 tion is regeneration. This became a sense of the word baptism. 
 It was also applied to the external rite to denote its name, but not 
 its efficacy. The view that I advocate explains all this. It led 
 me to expect it ; and facts are as I expected to find them. Hence 
 to Basil and to the Fathers I must resign the palm of originality. 
 I cannot, however, give them the premium for more nonsense 
 than mine. Their nonsense and mine seem in quantity exactly 
 to coincide. Dr. Carson's a priori reasonings against my views, 
 are therefore merely reasonings against notorious matters of fact. 
 This is as I expected. His principles are at war with facts, and 
 to what else can they lead him ? If then his reasoning is good, 
 what has he proved ? Simply that the actual facts of language, 
 and the actual operations of the human mind, are nonsense. All 
 this may be ; and this state of things may call loudlv for reform. 
 
§ 69. RESULT. 229 
 
 Let not Dr. Carson then be discouraged. It merely opens to him 
 a new field of reform. Let him follow his high vocation, and 
 having reformed philology, commentary, rhetoric, and logic, let 
 him next reform the human mind itself, and human languages, 
 the offspring of that mind. Then he will have all things to his 
 liking. Then, and not till then, will his favorite principles have 
 full scope. What kind of languages he will form it is not for me 
 to say. I enter not a sphere so high. They may be the tongues 
 of angels : certainly they will not be the tongues of men. As for 
 me, I am willino; to take facts as I find them, even at the hazard 
 of being charged with nonsense, for so doing. I leave the tongues 
 of angels to Dr. Carson. I am contented to study the tongues of 
 men. 
 
 § 69. Result. 
 
 The conclusion of the whole matter then is this. The testi- 
 mony of the Fathers, according to Dr. Carson, is absolute and de- 
 cisive, for they must have known the apostolic usage of the word ; 
 to say otherwise is virtually to say that the Scriptures are no reve- 
 lation. But the testimony of the Fathers is as full against his 
 positions, and in favor of mine, as is in the nature of things pos- 
 sible ; and, therefore, the question is decided in my favor, and 
 that not by the opinions of modern critics, but by men from whose 
 opinion there is no appeal. 
 
 But before closing the argument, I desire to repeat what I have 
 often said before, that I appeal to the Fathers simply as witnesses 
 to the meaning of words. Many of their opinions which I have 
 stated, as for example, those on baptismal regeneration, holy 
 water, etc., are clearly false. But this does not at all invalidate 
 or weaken their testimony as to the use of words, or hide the 
 great fact, which blazes through their pages like the sun in mid 
 heaven, that they habitually used fSair-ri^c^ to denote purification 
 of every kind. So that with the proposition, which I laid down 
 at the opening of this discussion, I bring it to a close. § 3, pp. 
 7-11. 
 
230 CONCLUSION. § "70. 
 
 " The word (Saitrlt^!^, as a religious term, means neither dip nor 
 sprinkle, immerse nor pour, nor any other external action in ap- 
 plying a fluid to the body, or the body to a fluid, nor any action 
 that is limited to one mode of performance. But as a religious 
 term, it means, at all times, to purify or cleanse, — words of a 
 meaning so general, as not to be confined to any mode or agent, 
 or means, or object, whether material or spiritual, but to leave 
 the widest scope for the question as to the mode. So that in this 
 usage it is in every respect a perfect synonyme of the word xa^ct- 
 
 This proposition I at first derived solely from an examination of 
 the New Testament usage, and I here repeat it as a true view of 
 the import of the language of that supreme law of the Christian 
 church. And I value the appeal to the Fathers simply as helping 
 us, by their testimony to the usus loquendi, to reach a true inter- 
 pretation of the word of God. Such then, as I have just stated, 
 is the religious usage of the New Testament, and if so, all at- 
 tempts to enforce on the church obedience to a command to im- 
 merse, is a manifest invasion of the great principle of religious 
 liberty. It is teaching for doctrines the commandments of 
 
 MEN. 
 
 § 70. Conclusion. 
 
 With four remarks I will close. 
 
 1. The present position of the Baptist denomination towards 
 the rest of their fellow-Christians on earth, is exceedingly dis- 
 honorable to God, injurious to themselves, and injurious to the 
 highest interests of the whole Christian community. 
 
 2. There is no higher duty at this time resting on the church 
 than that of bringing this long protracted and exceedingly in- 
 jurious controversy to a close. 
 
 3. It can be brought to a close. 
 
 4. The responsibility of terminating it rests mainly, if not en- 
 tirely, on the learned scholars and leading minds of the Christian 
 world. 
 
§ 70. CONCLUSION. 231 
 
 The truth of these propositions must be so obvious to every 
 thinking mind, that I might almost leave them without remark. 
 But to guard against all misunderstanding, I would remark, by- 
 way of more full illustration : 
 
 1. That to have real Christians, who agree in all fundamen- 
 tals, divided in communion and action by a mere question of form, 
 is, and must be, at all times, dishonorable and painful to God — 
 for in practice it treats non-essentials as more important than es- 
 sentials, and arrays holy men against holy men, to weaken each 
 other's power, and injure each other's character and usefulness. 
 And what more could even the devil himself desire ? 
 
 It is injurious to the Baptists, for it has injured them. Among 
 them are eminently pious men, but a bad system has ensnared 
 and betrayed them. How else can we account for it that they 
 should have dared solemnly and formally to arrogate to them- 
 selves that they are divinely and peculiarly set for the defence 
 of THE GOSPEL, and that the heathen world must look to them alone 
 for an unveiled view of the glories of the gospel of Christ. 
 Has it then come to this ? Take away immersion, and is the 
 gospel shorn of all its glories ? Yea, is the gospel itself anni- 
 hilated ? Is immersion the gospel ? What more can the most 
 bigoted defender of baptismal regeneration and sacramen- 
 tal sanctification say than all this ? But do our pious Bap- 
 tist brethren mean all this ? No ! a thousand times, no. They 
 know and feel, as well as we, that immersion is not the gospel ? 
 These facts only show, what all experience has shown, the dan= 
 ger of holding a system which makes a mere form of so much 
 moment in practice, as to outweigh holine^ of heart and of life. 
 In spite of all reasoning and professions to the contrary, it will, 
 as a general fact, concentrate on itself a disproportioned, an un- 
 healthy interest, narrow the range of Christian feeling, chill it 
 and^ check its expansion, and derange and distort the intellectual 
 perceptions of the mind. Men of uncommon native nobleness of 
 character, as Robert Hall, or men of great piety, may hold these 
 tendencies of the system in check. But multitudes will not. 
 
232 CONCLUSION. § 70. 
 
 Taught to regard themselves as distinguished from the rest of the 
 Christian world by a form, the spirit of formalism will have 
 scope. The pernicious idea of divine favoritism, on the ground 
 of forms, will grow up, and this will breed arrogance, censorious- 
 ness, exclusion, and the spirit of proselyting in its highest degree. 
 Nor do I speak of tendencies merely ; these tendencies are em- 
 bodied in public official results. How else can we account for it 
 that even evangelical Baptists, not Campbellites or Mormons, but 
 even evangelical Baptists, have dared to arrogate to themselves a 
 peculiar divine appointment to defend and promulgate the gospel 
 of Christ, and have dared to charge two leading Christian Bible 
 Societies, the American and British and Foreign, as " virtually 
 COMBINING TO OBSCURE a part, at least, of divine revelation," and to 
 say, that in the translation of other denominations, " the I'eal 
 meaning of the words is purposely kept out of sight ?" Is it no 
 injury to pious men to be so ensnared and deluded by a false sys- 
 tem, as to say and do such things as these ? These are not the 
 promptings of their Christian hearts, for that they have Christian 
 hearts I will not doubt. No ; it is the poison, the delusion of a 
 false system that has done this. 
 
 No less is the Baptist system injurious to the highest interests 
 of the whole Christian community. The implications of the 
 Baptist system, and the proselyting spirit generated by it, and 
 their charges on the rest of the Christian community, tend directly 
 to irritate and alienate, to cherish the spirit of hostility, to nourish 
 unholy controversy, to corrupt the love of truth by the desire of 
 victory, and to breed an unchristian contempt towards our Bap- 
 tist brethren, as exclusive, narrow-minded, and contracted. All 
 this is wrong, and it is an infinite evil. Over it all true Chris- 
 tians ought to mourn ; against it they ought to strive and pray. 
 But the Baptist system tends directly to produce it. For it is 
 based on a mere external act, which has in itself no importance, 
 except what is supposed to be created by a positive command. It 
 is not like the law of God, and holiness, founded in the nature of 
 things ; and yet it cuts with the sharp edge of exclusion, and 
 
§ 70. CONCLUSION. 233 
 
 with charges of rebellion against God, as keenly as if it were as 
 important as the being of God himself. Now, though to yield to 
 temptation is wrong, and Christian endurance ought to rise supe- 
 rior to every trial, yet it is, and ever will be, an infinite calamity 
 to the church, to be harassed and tried by a system so exquisitely 
 adapted, both in theory and practice, to irritate and provoke ; and 
 the cessation of an influence so malignant, vvould be to the church 
 almost like life from the dead*. Of course, 
 
 2. There is no higher duty resting on the church, at this time, 
 than that of bringing this long protracted and exceedingly in- 
 jurious controversy to a close. The last great Papal v/ar is 
 coming on ; our own civil and religious liberties are in danger ; 
 and is this a time still more to embitter the divisions of real 
 Christians at home, and to sow the seeds of future discord, by 
 translations unintentionally, but really erroneous, in all parts of 
 the heathen world '? The power of Satan's harlot church lies in 
 organic unity on false and worldly principles. But still, unity 
 gives power, and till the true church discovers the true law of 
 Christian unity, and unites, the power of Satan cannot be, and will 
 not be overcome. He knows the full worth of the maxim, divide 
 and conquer. The worth of the maxim, unite and conquer, the 
 church has yet to learn ; and to learn it, and reduce it to practice, 
 is the great work and duty of the present age. 
 
 3. This controversy can be brought to a close. The real issue 
 is one and simple. False issues can be avoided. False princi- 
 ples rejected — and the real issue decided ; for it all depends upon 
 a simple question in philology, and, with regard to that question, 
 there is abundant proof. 
 
 The settlement of this question has been greatly hindered by 
 attempts to prove that Sairri^G) means to sprinkle or pour. I 
 have never seen the least evidence that it has either of these 
 meanings, and to attempt to defend the cause of sprinkling or 
 pouring, on such grounds, is, in my judgment, to make a false 
 issue, and in effect to betray the cause ; and yet it has been often 
 
234 coxXCLUsioN. § 70. 
 
 done, and is still done. I shall not wonder if Baptists remain 
 for ever unconvinced by such arguments as these. 
 
 The settlement of this question is also greatly hindered by ad- 
 mitting that (Satri^c) in the command, means to immerse, and yet 
 claiming the right, on the ground of expediency, to practise 
 sprinkling, because, in our judgment, it retains the essence of the 
 command. Especially, if it is at the same time conceded that 
 Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, relate to the external rite, and that 
 the early church understood (Banri^u) as meaning immerse, and 
 practised immersion for that reason. When all this is conceded, 
 the whole question is conceded. It is perfect logical demonstra- 
 tion in favor of immersion. But I have abundantly shown that 
 none of these things are so. Hence, to concede them, is to give 
 up the whole question, and then on the grounds of expediency, to 
 claim the right to alter a command of God. This is placing the 
 defence of the right to sprinkle on a false principle, for no such 
 right as is claimed exists. Nor shall I wonder if the Baptists re- 
 main for ever unconvinced by such reasoning as this. 
 
 The real and only issue is this.- Is the command an open com- 
 mand ? Is it a command to purify, or a command to perform an 
 external specific act ? One or the other it is. Which ? If the 
 latter, then let us all obey. If a command to purify, then let us 
 all cease to dispute about forms, and obey in that mode which 
 seems to us most significant, decorous, and solemn. 
 
 This brings the v.hole question to an issue, definite and simple, 
 and as it regards every point upon which the issue depends, there 
 is abundant proof, and that of a kind which is in its nature abso- 
 lute and decisive. 
 
 4. The responsibility of terminating this discussion rests main- 
 ly, if not entirely, with the learned scholars and leading minds of 
 the Christian world. 
 
 It depends upon a question in philology. On such questions 
 original investigation is, and must be, limited to a few. It extends 
 over a wide field, and calls for nice discrimination, and accurate 
 principles of philology. Hence, the mass of the Christian com- 
 
§ 70. CONCLUSION. 235 
 
 munity are peculiarly in the power of their leaders — and their 
 leaders are exposed to peculiar temptations. By bold and united 
 assertions, and by overlooking or suppressing evidence, they can 
 keep their parties together, and inspire them with zeal even 
 against the truth. 
 
 flence, on no class of men do such responsibilities rest as on 
 the learned leaders in this cause, to make themselves fully ac- 
 quainted with the evidence on which a decision depends, to avoid 
 all false issues, to reject all unsound principles, and sincerely and 
 honestly, as in the sight of God, to meet the main question, avoid- 
 ing all personalities, and all unchristian excitement, and suppress- 
 ing and concealing no part of the truth. If they will do this, 
 and look to God for the illumination and guidance of the Spirit, 
 then he will cause the watchmen to see eye to eye, to lift up the 
 voice together, and together to sing. If not, let them fear lest 
 they become not merely blind leadersof the blind, but treacherous 
 guides of confiding, but dependent minds. All error in the dis- 
 cussion of this subject is not on one side. There have been false 
 defences of the truth, which need as really to be abandoned, as 
 positive error. And a supreme regard to the glory of God should 
 lead each lo inquire, not how can I prove that all my past posi- 
 tions have been true, but how can I discover all errors which I 
 have incautiously embraced, and retain the truth alone ? So soon 
 as leading minds agree on this point, the mind of the community 
 will be at rest, and not till then. 
 
 Much evil has been done by speaking of this discussion as a 
 mere dispute about forms, and as unworthy of the attention of an 
 expanded and liberal mind. It relates, indeed, to a form, but, as 
 I have shown, it affects immense spiritual interests, and it is in its 
 essential nature a question in philology — to be decided just as all 
 other philological questions are — and the real difficulty has been, 
 not that it has been discussed too much, but that the discussion 
 has not been sufficiently radical and extensive, and that much 
 very important evidence has been sparingly used, if used at all. 
 Let this state of things cease, and the sanctified intellectual ener- 
 
236 CONCLUSION. § "70. 
 
 gies of the Christian community be brought to bear on this sub- 
 ject with humble prayer for divine guidance, and the clouds of 
 error will pass away. 
 
 The present state of things ought not to continue, nay, it can- 
 not. The cause of God can never triumph whilst his church is 
 so painfully divided, and her energies so paralysed, and so long 
 as such errorists as the Campbellites and the Mormons are 
 shielded, in their most pernicious formalism, on a point so vital to 
 them as Baptism, by the influence of the Evangelical Baptists. 
 
 Nor does it seem to me possible that all leading minds, through 
 power of conviction, should ever accede to the Baptist position in 
 all its rigor and extent, giving to the word but one sense, and that 
 to immerse ; and making this an iron rule for translation and 
 practice- It is a system more rigid than that of the Fathers, 
 even in the ages of the highest formalism. So rigid a system 
 never did prevail in the church, nor can I believe that it ever will. 
 There are not the elements of logical proof in existence. It dis- 
 agrees with all of our ideas of fitness ; there is no reason to wish 
 it true, and its fundamental position can be logically destroyed. 
 
 The position defended by me, takes nothing from any one but 
 the right to think others wrong, and to censure and exclude them, 
 and in itself considered, there is everything to recommend it. 
 For 
 
 1. It is more adapted to the varying conditions of men, and to 
 all changes of climate, times, seasons, and health. 
 
 2. It is more accordant with the liberal and enlarged spirit of 
 .Christianity, as a religion of freedom, designed for all countries 
 
 and all times. 
 
 3. It better agrees with our ideas of what is reasonable and 
 fit. 
 
 4. It offers no temptations to formalism, nor does it tend to fos- 
 ter arrogance and exclusion. 
 
 5. It is perfectly adequate to harmonize the church. 
 
 6. It is susceptible of any necessary degree of proof. 
 
 I have, by no means, exhausted the proof that exists, nor even 
 
§ 70. CONCLUSION. 237 
 
 what I have on hand. To much I have not had time even to al- 
 lude. But what I have produced is sufficient, I trust, by the 
 blessing of God, to secure the end that I proposed, " to furnish 
 some small share of the materials which God may use in pro- 
 ducing the unity of his own church." But for faith in God, I 
 never should have dared to undertake this work. But for his sus- 
 taining grace I could not have brought it thus far. Almost ex- 
 hausted by efforts to sustain the college over which I preside, in a 
 time of unparalleled pecuniary embarrassment, without an ade- 
 quate library at the college, compelled to visit distant libraries, 
 some more than a thousand miles distant, and to make researches 
 at long intervals, loaded with pecuniary cares and anxieties, com- 
 pelled often to write on journeys, in steamboats, and canal-boats, 
 and taverns, no one can be more deeply sensible than I am of the 
 necessary imperfections of my performance. Yet I have looked 
 to my God to save me from hurtful error, and to guide me into 
 the truth, and it is my humble persuasion that he has heard my 
 prayer. To him, in conclusion, I commend all that I have writ- 
 ten, imploring him to pardon all its imperfections, to correct all its 
 errors, and to use all its truth to the glory of his own great and 
 holy name. 
 
PART IV. 
 
 NOTICE OF DR. CARSOn's SECOND REPLY. 
 
 CHAPTER I . 
 
 § 71. State of the Controversy. 
 
 Those who have read what precedes, will remember that Dr. 
 Carson spoke of my proposal to derive evidence from the Fathers, 
 that (SaifTi^o^ means to purify, as follows : 
 
 " Proof from the Fathers, that /3a<7rr(^w signifies to purify ! 
 As well might lie profess to find in them proof for the existence 
 of railroads and steam coaches. There is no such proof; there 
 is not an instance in all the Fathers in which the word or any of 
 its derivatives are so used. Without exception, they use the 
 word always for immersion." He says this as a scholar, pro- 
 fessing to be " acquainted with the Fathers." 
 
 Of the value of the testimony of the Fathers, he spoke as 
 follows : 
 
 " They knew the meaning of the language which they spoke." 
 p. 472. " The sense in which it (iSa-TrTi^w) was used by the 
 apostles must have been known most assuredly to all that either 
 heard them or read their writings. To suppose that persons who 
 spoke the Greek language might understand their words in a 
 sense different from that in which they used them would be to 
 charge the Scripture as not being a revelation." p. 473. 
 
 Here then, in this long debated controversy, was an issue 
 finally presented which involved a final, absolute, and irrevocable 
 decision of the question. 
 
 The Fathers were infallible witnesses. They have testified 
 
§ 71, STATE OF THE CONTROVERSY. 239 
 
 explicitly, and abundantly. Dr. Carson says that always, without 
 exception, they testify for immersion. I assert with equal con- 
 fidence that they testify in favor of the sense purification. 
 
 From this issue I do not intend to be turned aside by Dr. 
 Carson's innumerable and irrelevant personal attacks. It is of 
 no great consequence to the church, or to the world, whether 1 
 have or have " not a head for the philosophy of language," on 
 which grave point Dr. Carson gives us his opinion — p. 436. At 
 least, if a Greek Father expressly defines (Sairri^cjj as meaning to 
 purify, I can understand it, and quote it for the benefit of 
 Dr. Carson and his disciples — and it is incumbent on them to 
 show that the Father in question does not so define /Da-TrTi'^w, or 
 to give up the controversy. 
 
 No question can be brought to an issue more direct, or more 
 easily decided. The whole subject lies in a nut-shell. From 
 this issue I do not mean to turn aside to the right hand nor to the 
 left. 
 
 What then are the facts in the case ? They are these : I 
 brought forward, not from one, but from many Fathers, not 
 merely one, but multitudinous testimonies, as explicit, and as 
 direct as possible, that fSa'n'Ti^cj means to purify. 
 
 I will mention a few of the items. 
 
 1. I quoted from Basil an express and formal definition of the 
 word (SccifrKfixa, as meaning purification. In this definition he 
 was professedly explaining the meaning of the word used by 
 John in the days of Christ, and with reference to the institution 
 of baptism. Evidence more unequivocal of the correctness of my 
 position cannot be conceived. See § 55. 
 
 2. I had asserted that (Sa'n-ri^^u was also used in the sense of 
 xa^a^i^oj to denote sacrificial purification or the remission of sins. 
 This assertion Dr. Carson ridiculed. In proof of its truth I 
 quoted a comment of Athanasius on the words of John, in which 
 he afiirms that his words, he shall baptize you with the Holy 
 Ghost, mean xa^a^i?» ujxaj, he shall purify you, that is, as he ex- 
 plains it, forgive your sins. § 55. 
 
240 STATE OF THE CONTROVERSY. § 71. 
 
 3. I quoted from the Lexicon of Zonaras written in Greek, his 
 native tongue, a definition of /rJarTJcTjaa as meaning the remission 
 of sins by water and the Spirit — which perfectly coincides with 
 Athanasius. The same lexicon also gives to (BaifTicfixa the other 
 sense of xa^apj<^w, i. e. moral purification. § 55. 
 
 4. I quoted from Proclus a passage variously and beautifully 
 illustrating and confirming the same sense ; in this John is re- 
 presented as using f3aitri<^(,) in the sense to purify, to acquit, in 
 stating to Christ the reasons of his reluctance to baptize him. 
 § 54. How can I, a sinner, says he, purify, i. e. absolve my 
 judge ? 
 
 5. I quoted a passage from Ambrose on Jewish and heathen 
 baptisms, in which, because their washings do not remit sins, he 
 denies to them the name of baptisms, and says that they are 
 merely lavacra. Of course he must use the word in the same 
 sense as Athanasius, Zonaras, and Proclus. § 53. 
 
 6. I quoted from Ambrose a passage in which he calls sprink- 
 ling a baptism, § 61. Also another passage from the same Father, 
 in which he speaks of a person sprinkled with blood as baptized 
 according to the law, § 53. Here the sense purified is plainly 
 demanded. 
 
 7. I quoted a passage from Cyril of Alexandria, in which he 
 speaks of spriiikling the unclean with the ashes of a heifer, as a 
 baptism — thus showing how he understood Siacpo^oi (SairrKf^oi, in 
 Heb. ix. 10, and (SaifTi^oixsvog a-rro vsx^ov in Sirach xxxiv. 25. 
 
 8. I quoted from Tertullian a passage in which he speaks of the 
 washings and sprinklings of the heathen as the devil's baptism, 
 §53. 
 
 9. I quoted a passage from Justin Martyr, in which he says, 
 "be baptized, as to your soul, from anger, from covetousness, 
 from envy, from hatred, and lo ! your body is pure." Here the 
 preposition a-rro demands the sense purify — no less than the anti- 
 thesis, lo, your body is pure (xa<3a^6v). 
 
 10. I argued from the use of the preposition ^la after ^airri^u, 
 just as it is used after xa^a^/Jw. The sense immerse requires sig 
 
§71. STATE OF THE CONTROVERSY. 241 
 
 or 5v. We say to purify hy or with water — to immerse or dip 
 into water. Notliing can more clearly show that /SaTTTj^w has 
 the sense of xa^a^/^w, than its thus taking after it the preposition 
 5<a, and in Latin per, § 56, and § 64. 
 
 11. 1 quoted Basil, Eusebius of Coesarea, Cyril of Alexandria, 
 and others, to prove that the Fathers understood the verbs denoting 
 to purify in Is. iv. 4, and Mai. iii. 1-3, in predictions of the 
 coming of the Messiah, as equivalent in sense to (Sa-uirll^u in the 
 New Testament, as used by Christ and John. No evidence can 
 exceed this in strength. 
 
 12. Dr. Carson denied and ridiculed my statement that in Jn. 
 iii. 25, a question concerning purification was equivalent to a 
 question concerning baptisixk Against him I appealed to Chry- 
 sostom, Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria, and Theophylact. 
 and quoted from Theophylact, an express recognition oi ^aitTid^oi 
 as an equivalent of xa^a^jtffxoff. 
 
 13. I quoted the author of the opus imperfectum on Matthew, 
 ascribed to Chrysostom — and showed that he calls purification by 
 the word of Christ baptism by the word of Christ, referring to 
 Christ's assertion. Now ye are clean xa&a^oi through the word that 
 I have spoken unto you ; also that he calls purification by trials, 
 baptism by trials. 
 
 14. I quoted Theophylact, as thus expressing the idea that 
 John was imrijied by putting his hand on the head of Christ : 
 "John was baptized by putting his hand on the head of Christ." 
 
 15. I quoted Theophylact to prove that in Luke xi. 38, the'puri- 
 fication expected of Christ was a washing of the hands, and that 
 sfBa.'n'r'Ki&ri was used in the sense of purify. I quoted from the 
 Apostolic Constitutions a proof that the same word as applied to 
 couches, cups, &c., in Mark 7, means to purify. 
 
 I mention these cases not as at all exhausting the argument, 
 but as specimens to illustrate the nature, the variety, and the 
 power of the proofs adduced by me. 
 
 They are powerful not only in themselves, but, as a cumulative 
 argument, of vast force. I have quoted not far from one hundred 
 
 11 
 
242 STATE OF THE COI^TKOVERSY. §71. 
 
 passages from the Fathers to sustain my views — and they are 
 from the Fathers of all ages — and they combine in one con- 
 sistent and harmonious argument, and thus sustain each other 
 with augmented power. It became Dr. Carson, of course, to 
 meet and to answer^this testimony, or else honestly and honorably 
 to abandon his grounds. 
 
 What then has he done ? He has written a nominal reply of 
 nine pages and a half, in which, whatever else he has done, he has 
 not either answered or professed to answer, these quotations from 
 the Fathers, nor indeed the great mass of my quotations from 
 them. That is to say, he has not stated either the quotations, or 
 their import, and then tried to show that they do not prove what I 
 allege. Not only has he not done this, but what is more, he has 
 not even attempted to do it. Just at this auspicious moment, he 
 makes the happy discovery that, " To prove that the Fathers 
 understood the word (^airri^oj) as immersion in reference to the 
 ordinance of baptism, at any length, would be totally unsuitable 
 to his present work." p. 488. 
 
 That is to say, although the great end of his work is to prove 
 that ^aTTTj^w, as used in the ordinance by Christ, means to im- 
 merse, and although he asserts that the Fathers do infallibly 
 prove it, yet it is totally unsuitable to the great end of his work, 
 to prove at any length this assertion, although upon it his whole 
 cause rests. 
 
 Of what avail can it be now, for Dr. Carson to resort to offen- 
 sive personal attacks upon my competency as a scholar, in the 
 midst of such virtual and decisive confessions of entire defeat ? 
 Where was it ever heard of before, that a controversialist thought 
 it totally unsuitable to prove his main position, at any length, by 
 the strongest testimony conceivable, which lay before him in 
 abundance, and devoted the greater part of a whole volume to 
 testimony of little or no weight ? If Dr. Carson had omitted the 
 greater part of his prolix volume, as finally published by him, and 
 fairly met and answered my quotations from the Fathers, and 
 proved at groat length that they testify as he asserts, he would 
 
§ 72. REAL PHILOSOPHY OF DR. CARSON's REPLY. 243 
 
 have done something very much to his purpose. As it is, he has 
 virtually confessed that it is utterly beyond his power to do any 
 such thing. This is very much to my purpose, but very little 
 to his. 
 
 As a fair answer then, to my argument, Dr. Carson's last reply 
 is unworthy of notice. It needs none. It is a mere confession of 
 defeat. 
 
 § 72. Real Philosophy of Dr. Carson'' s Reply. 
 
 Yet for certain purposes, it has its merits. There is in Eng- 
 land and Ireland a large circle over whom Dr. Carson exerts 
 immense influence, and who have never read my argument, and 
 are never likely to read it. He is also eulogised in some of the 
 British Reviews as well known in Scotland, England, and 
 America, as " a first rate scholar, a sound philosopher, an ir- 
 resistible reasoner, and a profound theologian, and with the 
 strictest propriety designated as one of the first Biblical critics of 
 the nineteenth century." At the end of the American edition of 
 his work on Baptism, published by the American Baptist Publica- 
 tion Society, is quite a collection of such eulogies, by writers of 
 different denominations, in which he is spoken of as in advance 
 of his age in the philosophy of language, impartial, candid, 
 honest, habituated to deep and searching thought, and with re- 
 spect to metaphysical acuteness, the Jonathan Edwards of the 
 nineteenth century. 
 
 In such circumstances, and with such a reputation, it would be 
 easy for Dr. Carson entirely to destroy the influence of my argu- 
 ment on a large class of minds, and that without assuming the 
 responsibility of answering it. This he could do by attacks on 
 my capacity as a scholar, and bold and contemptuous assertions, 
 without a particle of proof. And although nine pages would 
 hardly furnish room even to begin to answer my argument in a 
 manly and scholar-like way, still they would furnish abundant 
 room for all the unproved assertions of which Dr. Carson or any 
 one else happened to be in need. 
 
244 AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY. § 73. 
 
 Moreover, the very brevity of the reply, taken in connexion with 
 its tone of supercilious contempt, would in many minds, marvel- 
 lously augment the conviction that my argument was a very light 
 affair, and scarcely deserved notice. So feeble would they regard 
 it that a blow or two of Dr. Carson's club would easily finish it. 
 Viewed, then, as a mere controversial manoeuvre, and without 
 any regard to a candid inquiry after the truth. Dr. Carson's 
 reply has decided merits. In this view I do not at all despise it. 
 It was obviously written for effect, and has exerted, and will, no 
 doubt, continue to exert a great partisan influence through the 
 whole Baptist denomination — most of whom will read Dr. Carson, 
 and never see my argument. 
 
 § 73. American Baptist Publication Society. 
 
 This effect may be anticipated with the more confidence from 
 the fact that so respectable a religious body as the American 
 Baptist Publication Society, have endorsed and republished his 
 work, with the highest eulogies of it, and of its author. 
 
 His work, they tell us, is " not a local or temporary production, 
 but one calculated for any latitude, and destined to live through- 
 out all time," p. xlvi. Again they say, p. xliii., "His mission 
 is accomplished. His literary career has now terminated ; but 
 not before his great task was done. Death could not touch him, 
 until he had put the finishing hand to this masterly production, 
 in which his name and his memory shall live through all future 
 time. He who, like Dr. Carson, has vindicated and rendered 
 prominent an ordinance of Jesus Christ, by disentangling it from 
 the web of human sophistry and perversion, has done better for 
 the world than if he had founded a kingdom, and has reared for 
 himself a monument more lasting than pillars of marble." 
 
 These eulogists seem to be nearly as well satisfied with Dr. 
 Carson's spirit, as with his logic. Many, they inform us, have 
 formed erroneous conceptions of his whole character, from the 
 apparent harshness of his criticisms. They assure us that such 
 
§ 73. AMERICAN BAPTIST PUBLICATION SOCIETY. 245 
 
 mistake the true origin of what may be called the Attic salt in 
 writing. It proceeds, they inform us, from good temper, self- 
 control, and coolness. " Anger and wrath evaporate in abuse. 
 But no one will find this applied by Dr. Carson to his opponents. 
 True, he will not allow impertinent quihUers, who, to support the 
 system of their own party, continue still to argue against the 
 clearest declarations of Scripture, to pass without rebuke. And 
 where is the ardent lover of truth, who will not say that such 
 ought to be rebuked and made to retire ashamed that the public 
 mind may be no more darkened by their perversions ?" 
 
 These honied words are not designed merely for my benefit. 
 Dr. Wardlaw, Dr. Henderson, Dr. Miller, Dr. Dwight, Prof. 
 Goodwin, Mr. Hall, Mr. Bickersteth, and others, come in for their 
 full share. And that this may not be left to inference, they say, 
 " We frankly confess that the more we read on the Baptismal 
 controversy, the more our charity compels us to struggle against 
 the conviction that forces itself on us, that on this subject it is not 
 light that is most wanted, but religious honesty.'^ The italics are 
 theirs. 
 
 Who does not admire the combined wisdom and charity of this 
 remarkable passage ? Surely the true way to convert men to the 
 opinions of Baptists, is kindly to inform them, that it requires a 
 special effort of Christian charity to resist the conviction that they 
 are such dishonest knaves, that argument is not what they need, 
 but honesty. Not liglit, but to be rebuked as impertinent quib- 
 blers who ought to retire ashamed, that the public mind may be 
 no more darkened by their perversions. 
 
 No wonder, that the authors of such an exquisite specimen of 
 " Attic salt," should find little or nothimg to censure in the spirit 
 of Dr. Carson. 
 
 But my main object in making these quotations is, to show that 
 all has been done by way of reply to mc, that is to be expected. 
 Dr. Carson read my argument, and replied as he saw fit; and 
 his admirers in this country have endorsed his reply as sufficient, 
 and more than sufficient. The great work of defending the 
 
246 MOTIVES TO REPLY TO DR. CABSON. § 74. 
 
 cause of immersion is done, and so done, that he who is not 
 satisfied and convinced, does not need argument but honesty. 
 
 § 74. Motives to reply to Dr. Carson. 
 
 In this state of the case. Dr. Carson's few pages of reply 
 deserve more notice than is demanded by their intrinsic merit. 
 True, they consist chiefly of assertions, which it belonged to him 
 to prove, before a reply could be demanded of me. But as the 
 Baptists have adopted and sanctioned them, as indicating their 
 line of march if peradventure they should undertake a campaign, 
 I shall take occasion still further to test my arguments in view of 
 Dr. Carson's assertions as to the ways in which they might have 
 been met, had it not been " totally unsuitable to the object of his 
 work" thus to meet them. 
 
 I had anticipated with a natural interest, the results of the 
 scrutiny of one who is considered by so many, the great master 
 in the philosophy of language, the leader of his age, the Jonathan 
 Edwards of the nineteenth century. But I was entirely dis- 
 appointed. I had not conceived that anything so weak could 
 proceed from him. I long said, can a reply be needed ? But 
 since not only the oracle has spoken, but the listeners, also, are 
 re-echoing his reply, as the fitting close of his glorious defence of 
 the great cause of immersion, I deem it proper to subject at 
 least some of his oracular dicta to a thorough scrutiny. 
 
 I shall not, however, confine myself to Dr. Carson's last brief 
 reply to me, but shall take occasion to review other statements in 
 his whole work of nearly five hundred pages, and to introduce 
 many facts which I had reserved, on the natural supposition that 
 it might not be "totally unsuitable" to Dr. Carson's great defence 
 of immersion to examine at length the testimony of those infallible 
 witnesses, the Fathers, on that subject. But as no such examina- 
 tion is regarded as suitable to a defence of immersion, I shall 
 continue to adduce from the Fathers new arguments in defence of 
 purification. It is entirely suitable to my work, to prove at great 
 
§ 75. OUTLINE OF DR. CARSOm's REPLY. 247 
 
 length, that the Fathers did understand /Sa-n-r/^w in the ordinance 
 a& meaning to purify. 
 
 § 75. Outline of Dr. Carson's Reply. 
 
 I will first give a brief sketch of the contents of his reply. 
 He begins by reiterating and trying to justify his charges of in- 
 competency against me, and that on grounds exceedingly frivo- 
 lous. He then informs us that nothing alleged by me at all affects 
 his view of the testimony of the Fathers. He next insinuates, but 
 does not affirm, much less prove, that the testimony adduced from 
 them does not prove the meaning of the word at the time of the 
 institution or commencement of the rite — a^ assertion directly 
 at war with the facts just stated, from the Fathers. 
 
 He then asserts, with his usual courtesy towards all who hap- 
 pen to differ from him, " That the Fathers understood the word as 
 immersion in reference to the institution of baptism, no scliolar 
 ever questioned.'^ If Dr. Carson had said this after fairly answer- 
 ing my arguments from the Fathers, it would have been less rude 
 and indecorous. But to leave such abundant testimony of the 
 Fathers totally unanswered, and yet to make such an assertion, is 
 a course of proceeding which I am perfectly willing to leave to all 
 candid and honorable persons, to characterize for themselves. 
 
 He then informs us, that to prove at any length that the Fathers 
 understood the word as immersion, would be totally unsuitable to 
 his present work. Dr. Carson, however, seems to think it quite 
 suitable to his work, to go at great length into the testimony ot 
 men who never saw or read the Septuagint, or the New Testa- 
 ment. But when I bring proof from Greek authors, who com- 
 pared the language of the Septuagint and the Greek Testament 
 togetiier, and stated what words in the Septuagint are synonymous 
 with fSanrri^u in the New Testament, he then discovers that it is 
 totally unsuitable to his work to prove at any length what they 
 thought on the matter ! Unsuitable to his work ! If Dr. Car- 
 son's great end was to defend, at all hazards, the false position he 
 
248 OUTLINE OF DR. CARSON 's REPLY. § 75. 
 
 had assumed in his work, 1 agree with him that it would be totally 
 unsuitable for him to investigate the testimony of the Fathers, at 
 any length. The best course for him, no doubt, on that supposi- 
 tion, would be, to do as he has done ; that is, neither to quote nor 
 to attempt to answer one of the positive testimonies of the Fathers, 
 to which I have just referred. For example, if he had quoted 
 the express testimony of Athanasius and Basil, that ^a-TfTj^w does 
 mean to purify, as used by John and Christ, it would have been 
 totally inconsistent with all his positive assertions to the contrary, 
 and with his ridicule and contempt of me for teaching the same 
 thing. 
 
 But to abstain entirely from the use of such ample stores of 
 proof as he declare^ to be treasured up in the Fathers, would 
 have been too obviously absurd. Dr. Carson therefore tells us, 
 " I shall submit two or three arguments, that, I hesitate not to say, 
 will produce conviction on the mind of every unprejudiced 
 reader.'' He then devotes three pages to a nominal argument 
 from the Fathei^, in which he is careful not to refer to pages, 
 but merely asserts that certain Fathers use the word thus and 
 so, and leaves his opponents to hunt out the passages, and test the 
 correctness of his assertions and inferences. 
 
 Whilst thus engaged, he proposes, by the way, two modes of 
 solving all the passages referred to by me. It is quite remarka- 
 ble that these modes are entirely unlike each other, so that al- 
 though the first as he asserts will solve all, and is therefore quite 
 sufficient, yet, as if fearful to trust it, he soon produces a new and 
 entirely different mode of solution, and boldly declares that this 
 will solve all ; and yet, as if not quite confident in either, he de- 
 clares that even if the Fathers do prove a secondary sense, it is 
 nothing to the purpose. In the midst of such changing resorts, 
 he is very careful not to put either of his modes of solution to 
 the proof, or give any evidence of the truth of his sweeping asser- 
 tions. The fact is, that both alleged modes of solution are base- 
 less visions, and, what is more, they could not solve my quota- 
 tions, if true, as in its place I shall prove. 
 
§ 75. OUTLINE OF DR. CARSON's REPLY. 249 
 
 Such is the course pursued by Dr. Carson, in meeting my 
 argument from the Fathers. It is, as I have before said, clearly 
 a virtual confession of defeat. He does not, indeed, at all abate 
 the positiveness of his assertion, and the boldness of his tone. 
 After so much insolence and boasting, no one would look for re- 
 traction or confession. But actions speak louder than words. No 
 man, unless he was hard pressed, and destitute of all other re- 
 sources, would ever pursue the course adopted by Dr. Carson. 
 
 The slight effort that he does make to prove his point from 
 the Fathers, in order to escape the absurdity of entirely omitting 
 those whom he declares to be the strongest witnesses in favor of 
 his cause, is such an utter failure, that it is equivalent to another 
 confession that his case admits of no defence. 
 
 To my exposure of the absurdity of his principles, he replies 
 solely by falsely charging me with omitting an essential part, when 
 any one who can read English, can see with his own eyes, that I 
 printed in his own words, and fully answered what he charges me 
 with omitting. This part of hfs reply is so feeble and so false, 
 that I felt an emotioi) of shame for him, and for his cause, when 
 I read it. 
 
 To my defence against various rude and indecorous charges, he 
 makes merely a feeble show of reply, and retracts none of them. 
 
 He concludes his piece by repeating his attacks upon my com- 
 petency as a scholar, and closes his glorious defence of immer- 
 sion, in the following eminently Christian and courteous style. 
 
 " My antagonist may be a very ingenious man, and a very pious 
 man, and, in many respects, a very clever man, but he has not a 
 head for the philosophy of language : and I say this with as little 
 bad feeling as I say that the three angles of every triangle are 
 equal to two right angles." This is certainly an illustrious 
 specimen of genuine Auic Salt. Dr. Carson, no doubt, has 
 monopolized the science of the philosophy of language. To his 
 stupendous attainments I make no pretence. 
 
 Having given this general view of his reply, I proceed to some 
 of the details. 
 
 ir 
 
250 QUESTION OF PRINCIPLES. § 76. 
 
 § 76. Question of Principles. 
 
 I will first notice his reply to my exposure of his principles. 
 
 It is on his principles that Dr. Carson chiefly prides himself. 
 He speaks as an eminent discoverer of principles, and lays down 
 canons with great authority, and charges all the lexicographers 
 and commentators with ignorance of them, because they assign to 
 /Sa-TT'TjJw a secondary sense. His admirers regard him as in ad- 
 vance of the age, as to the philosophy of language. I therefore 
 took great pains to collect his principles, and reduce them to a 
 system, which Dr. Carson never did. I stated them always in 
 his own words. The main battle, in the present discussion, lies 
 around the question what amount of evidence is necessary io 
 begin a secondary sense, when the primary sense is known and 
 established — e. g. : The primary sense of /Sa-n'-rj^w being to im- 
 merse, what evidence is necessary to begin the proof of the sense 
 to purify ? Dr. Carson says, an impossibility of the sense to im- 
 merse in some one case. But, after that, he says that a lower 
 degree of evidence is enough. 
 
 His principles as to beginning a proof of a secondary sense, I 
 considered and exposed in § 46, to which I refer the reader. His 
 admission that after the proof is begun, a lower degree of evi- 
 dence is sufficient, I stated in his own words, in § 51, and showed 
 that it leads to a logical destruction of his whole system. 
 
 Does Dr. Carson make any reply to this exposure of the radi- 
 cal unsoundness of the principles of his system ? 
 
 The only reply that he attempts, is to charge me falsely with 
 omitting that part of his theory which I stated in full, and 
 thoroughly answered, in § 51. 
 
 His words, as stated by me, are these — " As soon as a se- 
 condary meaning is ascertained on sufficient grounds, I do not 
 demand, in every instance, a proof of impossibility of primary 
 meaning, before the secondary is alleged. The competition be- 
 tween rival meanings, must then be ascertained on other grounds." 
 
 Thus I stated his principle in his own words, and yet Dr. Car- 
 
§ 77. ADDITIONAL EXPOSURE OF DR. CARSON. 2-51 
 
 son dares to say, p. 492, " He leaves out an essential part of my 
 canon. Impossibility is required only when a secondary meaning 
 is not in proof. If in any occurrence in the language a secondary 
 meaning is in proof, impossibility of primary meaning is not es- 
 sential to warrant the application of a secondary meaning. I have 
 again and again explained this doctrine;" and I, too, have stated 
 it in Dr. Carson's own words. And yet thousands who confide in 
 Dr. Carson's veracity, will read his charge, and believe that I 
 did omit what Dr. Carson alleges, and will never know that I 
 quoted it in his own words, and showed that it leads to absurdity, 
 and to the overthrow of his system. 
 
 So far, then, as my exposure of Dr. Carson's principles is con- 
 cerned, it remains entirely unanswered, and in full force. The 
 candid reader can find it in §§ 46, 49, 51. 
 
 §77. Additional Exposure of Dr . Carson. 
 
 To that exposure, 1 will now add, that in it 1 gave Dr. Carson 
 the benefit of a false statement, as to his own practice, which I 
 left uncorrected. 
 
 He said that a secondary sense cannot be admitted till the im- 
 possibility of the primary is proved, in some one instance. 
 
 To this I replied, " It is against his own practice, in other cases. 
 Does he not admit that (Saitro) means to dye or color, when it is 
 applied to the beard and hair ? And is it impossible to dip these ? 
 Improbable, surely, it is, but not half so much so as the dipping of 
 couches." To this he thus replies. 
 
 " Here I am caught at last, surely my feet are entangled in 
 my own net. But let the reader see with what ease I can 
 extricate myself. The assertion of my antagonist arises from 
 his want of discrimination. I admit that (SccTrru) has a secondary 
 signification, because such signification is in proof, and instances 
 may be alleged in which its primary meaning is utterly impossi- 
 ble. When applied, for instance, to the lake, the immersion of a 
 lake in the blood of a frog, is beyond the bounds of possibility. 
 
252 ADDITIONAL EXPOSURE OF DR. CARSON. § 77. 
 
 Show me anything like this with respect to /oa-Trr/^w, and I will 
 grant a secondary meaning." 
 
 This implies that he begins his evidence for a secondary sense 
 of /So-TTTW with the case of the lake and the frog. The reverse is 
 the fact. He first establishes a secondary sense without any 
 reliance at all on that case, and having thus established a second- 
 ary sense, he applies it to tiiat case, to disprove the opinion of Dr. 
 Gale, that /Socn'rw there means immerse, and not color. 
 
 On pp. 44, 45, he quotes passages containing /Sa-TrTW from 
 Hippocrates, Arrian, ^Elian, Nicolas of Damascus, and jEschylus, 
 in not one of which is the sense immerse impossible if his various 
 modes of evading a secondary sense in /Da-TrTi^co may be applied. 
 
 In view of these passages, and these alone, he says, " These 
 examples are sufficient to prove, that the word (Saitro signifies to 
 dye in general, though originally and still usually, applied to 
 dyeing by dipping. Having such evidence before my eyes, I 
 could not deny this to my opponents, even were it a difficulty as 
 \o the subject of the mode of baptism. In a controversialist 
 nothing can compensate for candor,'" &c. 
 
 And yet in all of these cases no impossibility of the sense im- 
 merse exists. Take the case from Hippocrates, which he pro- 
 duces first. He speaks of a liquid as dyeing garments when it 
 drops on them thus, " When it drops on the garments they are 
 dyed" (^a<r^rsrai). How easy now is it to allege, in the manner 
 of Dr. Carson, that the reference may be to an immersion in 
 water, to wash out the stains produced by the dropping 
 of the liquid on the garments ! Is not this possible ? If so, 
 the word cannot have the sense to dye. The next case is the 
 case of the Indians who are said to dye ^aicrsw their beards. It 
 will not be contended, says Dr. Carson, that they dyed their 
 beards by immersion. But can they not dip their beards ? If so, 
 the sense to dye is excluded. Again he says that in ^lian /Sacp-;?, 
 applied to the hair, " denotes dyeing in general, for hair on the 
 head is not dyed by dipping." But cannot the hair on the 
 
§ 77. ADDITIONAL EXPOSURE OF DR. CARSON. 253 
 
 head be dipped ? If so, dyeing is excluded. So the garment 
 dyed by the sword of ^Egisthus could have been dipped by it in 
 blood, and the sense to dye is excluded. In the case of the lady 
 to whose yellow locks, not colored by art, the word (ScccpaTs is ap- 
 plied, all that is necessary is to resort to his rhetorical principles, 
 and to quote from Milton " colors dipped in heaven," and then 
 boldly to affirm that no man who has a soul, need to be told what 
 is meant by such a beautiful catachrestic use of words, in which 
 the term " dippings" is applied to what had not been dipped, on 
 the ground of a perceived similarity of appearance. 
 
 And yet Dr. Carson, following the impulse of common sense, 
 admits and defends the sense to dye, without reference to mode, 
 in all these cases. He acts in so doing on my principles, and 
 renounces and condemns his own. 
 
 On the same principles he discusses other passages, and then 
 says, " Having found, heyond reasonalle doubt, that (Baitr!^, in its 
 secondary sense, is employed literally and properly to denote 
 dyeing, even when there is no dipping, we are now prepared to 
 examine the occurrence of the word in the battle of the Frogs 
 and Mice, which has been so obstinately contested." 
 
 That is, he first settles the question as to a secondary sense on 
 my principles, and then applies it to the case of the lake and the 
 blood of a frog. Dr. Carson then has not " extricated himself. 
 He is caught at last. Surely his feet are entangled in his own 
 net." But even if he had escaped from this snare, it was but to 
 fall into another, as in § 51, I clearly showed. 
 
 The truth is, that after all his boasting and the glorification of 
 his friends, the fundamental principle of his system is so totally 
 unsound that, when his common sense is not suppressed by what 
 he deems the essential necessity of his case, he adopts secondary 
 senses just as I do, and as is done by all other reasonable men. 
 
 Concerning the passages on which I have just commented he 
 says, " candor cannot say that there is any such implication or 
 reference" (i. e. to dipping), " from such examples it could not 
 
254 BEGGING THE QUESTION. § 78. 
 
 be known even that lapto has the meaning to dip." And yet in 
 every case the sense to dip is possible. The cases in which 
 /3a<n'T/fw has the sense to purify, adduced by me, are much 
 stronger than any of these passages, and yet Dr. Carson will not 
 admit the sense to purify, but employs the whole power of his 
 ingenuity, and that is not small, in devising modes of evasion. 
 
 § 78. Begging the Question. 
 
 In my exposure of Dr. Carson's principles in § 46, 1 showed that 
 he had begged the question. He boldly declares again and again, 
 that l3aifrii^o) means to immerse in the disputed passages in the New 
 Testament, because it has this meaning " in every instance in the 
 whole coiwpass of the language.^^ In fact his whole argument is 
 based on a constant reiteration of this assertion. 
 
 This I called a bold and dogmatical begging of the question, 
 because it assumes the very point in debate, and does this when 
 it is notorious that thousands of cases of the use of this word exist 
 which he has never seen. 
 
 To this he replies, " On this ground universal use could not be 
 assumed with respect to any word, for all the instances in which 
 any word has been used can never be produced." I reply, then 
 do not assume it : no man has any right in such an argument to 
 assert concerning what is so notoriously mutable as the sense of 
 words, more than he knows and can prove. He may on evidence 
 assert general use, or extensive use, properly enough. But when 
 a man makes such an assertion as that the word (BairTi^u) means 
 immerse in Mark vii. 4, because " immersion is the only meaning 
 of the word in every instance in the whole compass of the lan- 
 guage," p. 448, he plainly asserts what he does not know un- 
 less he has seen every instance, and he just as plainly begs the 
 question in debate. For this reason I again assert that Dr. 
 Carson's replies to me, and to all his antagonists, are based entirely 
 on the all-pervading begging of the question pointed out by me 
 in § 46. 
 
§ 79. MY PRINCIPLES. 255 
 
 § 79. My Principles. 
 
 Dr. Carson charged me with using a Unitarian canon. To 
 this I replied that he used the same canon that I did, and that all 
 persons of common sense employed it. The canon was this, 
 " that in assigning secondary meanings to words, we are to re- 
 gard the nature of the things spoken of." § 49. 
 
 That he used it I proved, because he admits that a secondary 
 sense may be adopted when the nature of the thing spoken of 
 renders the primary sense imj^ossible. Thus he says that to im- 
 merse a lake in the blood of a mouse is impossible. The nature 
 of the thing spoken of renders it impossible. Hence Dr. Carson 
 regards the nature of the thing spoken of as well as I in giving 
 secondary senses. The only difference between him and me is, 
 that I regard the nature of the thing spoken of, to a greater extent 
 than he professes to do. If it renders the primary meaning 
 highly improbable 1 regard it, even if I have not found one case of 
 actual impossibility. But till Dr. Carson can find one such case, 
 he professes to regard all degrees of improbability, however high, 
 as nothing — as mere ciphers. I called this absurd, because the 
 mere finding afterwards of one case of impossibility cannot re-act 
 so as to change fifty mere ciphers into fifty significant figures, 
 each one of great value. Yet Dr. Carson does and must go on 
 rejecting probability after probability, no matter how high, no 
 matter in how many cases. But if, at last, he finds one case of 
 actual impossibility, then each case which was before a mere 
 cipher now becomes a significant figure of great value. Such a 
 course of proceeding I call absurd, and maintain that all degrees 
 of probability are to be regarded as they arise, and that the re- 
 currence of frequent cases of strong improbability creates a 
 cumulative argument of force enough to decide the question. 
 
 To the allegation that the Unitarians can reason against the 
 true sense of the words of the Bible on the ground of probabilities 
 derived from the nature of the things spoken of, I replied, that 
 they can do the same on the ground of possibilities derived from 
 
256 MY PRINCIPLES. § 'J'9- 
 
 the nature of the things spoken of: e. g. They do say it is im- 
 possible for three divine persons to be one God. So that my 
 principle is essentially the same with Dr. Carson's, and the extent 
 to which I apply it does not make it any more justly liable to 
 objection than his is. 
 
 I think that all candid persons will regard this as a perfect 
 defence. How does Dr. Carson reply to it? He does three 
 things. He omits to state the vital part of my defence. He 
 asserts that I have not discrimination enough to know that such a 
 defence was necessary as he suppresses. He redoubles his as- 
 sertion that my canon is a Unitarian canon, at the same time 
 making no effort to prove his assertion, and of course making no 
 answer to my suppressed defence. It requires uncommon skill 
 to combine so much misrepresentation in so small a compass. 
 Let us examine his words. 
 
 " I have charged President Beecher with using a Unitarian 
 canon. How does he repel the charge ? He tells me that a 
 good canon is not the worse for being used by Unitarians." 
 True, but is this all ? Did I not also say, and prove, that my 
 canon was a good canon because Dr. Carson and all persons of 
 common sense acted on it ? Is not this the very essence of my reply ? 
 Of what use would it be to say that a good canon is not the worse 
 for being used by Unitarians, unless I first showed that my 
 canon was a good one, by the fact that all others used it, not even 
 omitting Dr. Carson. This, therefore, is the essence of the argu- 
 ment — yet he entirely omits it, and states what is no argument, 
 as if it was all my reply. 
 
 But this is only the first step. He proceeds, " I redouble the 
 charge," that is, of using a Unitarian canon. He then defines 
 the nature of a Unitarian canon. " A Unitarian canon is not a 
 sound canon employed by Unitarians as well as others. A Uni- 
 tarian canon is one which, if admitted, would prove Unitarianism." 
 The import of his redoubled charge, then, is, that I use a canon, 
 not sound, not used by others as well as Unitarians — and a canon 
 which will prove Unitarianism if admitted. These certainly 
 
§ 79. MY PRixcirLES. 257 
 
 are grave charges, and demand proof. What proof does Dr. 
 Carson give ? Not a syllable, but his redoubled assertion. And 
 inasmuch as he has entirely suppressed my proof to the contrary, 
 many will take his redoubled assertions for confirmation strong 
 as Holy Writ. But this is not the end. He winds up with his 
 usual homily on my want of discrimination. " What a want of 
 discrimination is this defence ! A canon that is sound ought to 
 be used by all." Th^s asserting that it is truly amazing that I 
 had not sense enough to know that. This goes far beyond sup- 
 pressing my defence. He not only suppresses it, but expresses 
 his amazement that I have not sense enough to know that it was 
 necessary. This, too, is equivalent to an assertion that I never 
 made it ! Let now Dr. Carson's admirers blush for him, when 
 they remember that I not only asserted but proved that my canon 
 was used by all persons of common sense, not excepting Dr. 
 Carson himself. In like manner, when 1 charged on him a gross 
 misrepresentation of my principles — what is his reply to a 
 charge so serious? "He complains that I unjustly represent 
 him as founding on probability independently of the meaning of 
 the word. I reiterate the charge." This is a fair specimen of 
 Dr. Carson's general course. His example says to all his ad- 
 mirers " never confess — never retract — all that is necessary is to 
 reiterate the charge — thousands will see and believe you who 
 will never see or hear of any reply." Will they eulogize and 
 adopt such an example ? 
 
 But he proceeds, " Does he not perceive that bj^ the meaning 
 of the word I understand a previously ascertained meaning ? 
 To this he does not even pretend. I found all on meaning pre- 
 viously ascertained ; this is a fundamental difference between him 
 and me." I reply — when in the first instance he admits that 
 ^a.ifT(ji means to color, docs he found on a previously ascertained 
 meaninrr? No: he founds, as I have shown, on the nature of the 
 thing spoken of. He departs from a previoiish/ nsccrlahicd mean- 
 ing on that ground, and introduces a new one. With regard to 
 /Sa'TrTjJw I acton the same principles ; hence, there is not a funda- 
 
258 MY PRINCIPLES. § 79. 
 
 mental difference between us. It is only a difference as to the 
 degree of difficulty in retaining the original sense, which is 
 necessary, in order to authorize us to introduce a new and second- 
 ary sense. 
 
 It is true, that I do not, like Dr. Carson, profess to reject all 
 probabilities, even the highest, till I can find a case in which the 
 original meaning is impossible ; it is true, that I give much weight 
 to a cumulative argument involving a combination of probabilities. 
 But this is not all that I do. I regard, as I stated at large, three 
 things at least: 1. General laws of language as to similar 
 changes, in analogous cases, ascertained by acknowledged ex- 
 amples. 2. I regard the original and primary sense of the word, in 
 order to see what effects flow from the action indicated by it in 
 different circumstances, and to what changes it would naturally 
 be subject. 3. I regard the circumstances of the speaker, and 
 the nature of the subject spoken of. Unless a man states all this 
 in representing my principles I regard him as misrepresenting 
 me. Do Dr. Carson's words truly represent all this ? He 
 says, 
 
 " Mr. Beecher proceeds on an axiom that is false, fanatical, and 
 subversive of all revealed truth, namely, that meaning is to be 
 assigned to words in any document not from the authority of the 
 use of language, ascertained by acknowledged examples, but from 
 views of probability of the thing related, independently of the 
 testimony of the words." 
 
 This implies that I regard the probability of the thing related 
 alone, and do not regard the general laws of language in similar 
 and acknowledged changes — and that I do not regard the primitive 
 sense of the word, which is false. Is there no misrepresentation 
 in such suppression ? 
 
 Dr. Carson knows how important an influence the primitive 
 sense of the word exercises on the formation of secondary senses. 
 On p. 53, he says, " If the word {(SairTc^) originally meant pour, or 
 sprinkle, no process can be supposed by which it can come to 
 mean to dye. Upon our view there is a connecting link which 
 
§ 79. MY PRINCIPLES. 259 
 
 joins these two meanings together notwithstanding their great 
 diversity." And does not a similar connecting link join the pri- 
 mary sense of /Sa-rrj Jw to the sense to purify ? I do not then 
 regard the probability of the thing, narrated alone, and indepen- 
 dently of the primary sense of the word. The primary sense of 
 the word itself renders the secondary sense which I claim, highly 
 probable, as I have elsewhere showij. 
 
 But is it not strange that Dr. Carson did not see that he was 
 open to a fatal retort ? Just put possibility in the place of proba- 
 bility, and it will thus read, " Dr. Carson, in assigning to /b'ocTrTw 
 the sense to dye, proceeds on an axiom that is false, fanatical, and 
 subversive of all revealed truth, namely, that meaning is to be 
 assigned to words in any document, not from the authority of the 
 use of language ascertained by acknowledged examples, but from 
 views of the possibility of the thing narrated, independently of the 
 testimony of the word" — e. g. : Unitarians say, three persons can- 
 not be one God ; Infidels say, Jonah could not have lived three 
 days in a whale's belly ; water enough to flood the world, above 
 the tops of the highest mountains, could not be found, &;c. &c. ; 
 hence we are not to interpret the words as meaning such things. 
 But I do not make the retort. Dr. Carson's procedure is sound, 
 as far as he goes, even if infidels abuse it. He is in error only 
 in professing to refuse to regard probabilities according to their 
 true worth. 
 
 In reply to my statements as to the cumulative argument, com- 
 posed of many independent cases of probabilities, he says, " in 
 defending the combination of his probabilities, he makes a dis- 
 tinction as to the nature of the subjects." What this alleged 
 distinction is, and what it has to do with the case in hand, he does 
 not explain ; that I make it, he does not prove. I deny that I 
 make any such distinction. He proceeds, " but on all subjects 
 nothing is nothing" (no one will be hardy enough to deny this) ; 
 " and IF I have proved that the probabilities are nothing separately, 
 nothing must they be in combination." True, if you have proved 
 it. Rut you have not proved it, but only asserted it, without 
 
2i:0 MY PRINCIPLES. § "79. 
 
 an effort at proof. Is not this an illustrious specimen of rea- 
 
 soning ? 
 
 But even if I do not make a distinction as to the nature of the 
 subject, Dr. Carson does, for he proceeds, " Besides, the probabili- 
 ty that, independently of testimony, a thing was done in a cer- 
 tain way, is a very different thing from the probability that a* 
 word has a certain meaning. That A. killed B. may be very 
 probable from many circumstances, but the moment that A. proves 
 an alibi, or that it is proved that C. is guilty of the murder, all the 
 previous probabilities are of no account." Now suppose all this 
 to be true, what is it to Dr. Carson's purpose ? If the probability 
 that a thing was or was not done in a given way, is a very dif- 
 ferent thing from the probability that a word has a certain mean- 
 ing, then what bearing has the supposed case on the point at issue, 
 which is the probability that a word has a certain meaning ? If 
 it has any force, it is against Dr. Carson-. I admit that previous 
 probabilities that A. did a certain act may be destroyed by posi- 
 tive testimony that he was not where the act was done, or that 
 another did it. Does it therefore follow that the probability tha 
 fSa'jrri^u has a given sense in a given case, can be destroyed by 
 an alibi, or by proving that some other word has that sense ? Dr. 
 Carson must say that the cases are unlike. Of course it does not 
 follow. Why then did he adduce the case ? There are no such 
 ways of destroying the probability that f'iaitri^u, in certain cases, 
 means to purify, and his own statement shows it. And is it pos- 
 sible that a man of such astonishing "perspicacity" and "dis- 
 crimination" has been fairly detected in reasoning against him- 
 self? 
 
 Such is Dr. Carson's mode of meeting my refutation of his 
 principles, and defence of my own. I have one thing to add — 
 his reply indicates both agitation and confusion. He has written 
 with no continuity or system, on the fundamental question of 
 principles. Two paragraphs on that question occur on p. 492. 
 Then topics of all sorts follow. Then, on the top of p. .494, 
 comes in another paragraph. He then goes off to other topics. 
 
§ 80. ARGUMENT FROM PREPOSITIONS. 261 
 
 Then, in the middle of the page, is another paragraph. Then he 
 goes off to other topics. Then, at the bottom of the page, is the 
 concluding paragraph. 
 
 The Sybil's leaves, scattered by the wind, and gathered up at 
 venture, were not more confused than the arrangement of Dr. 
 Carson's thoughts, on the subject of the principles of language. 
 
 If " he had a head for the philosophy of language," he seems 
 at least to have had no head for the philosophy of arrangement. 
 Instead of the light of well arranged reasonins;, we find nothing 
 but the scattered dust of false statements, and misrepresentations. 
 
 § 80. Argumeyit from Prepositions. 
 
 I have already remarked that Dr. Carson has made no reply to 
 the argument from the use of the same prepositions after (Ba'Tfrl^u) 
 as after xa^a^/^^w. His course, on this part of the argument, de- 
 serves particular notice. He is, for the most part, entirely silent. 
 To the greater part of the argument, nothing could be said, and 
 therefore he was silent. But one remark occurred, concerning 
 the use of h after fSccj^rKfixn, on which he thought he could con- 
 vict me of an inaccuracy, and, in a moment, he seized on this, 
 and reiterated his attack on my competency. " This," says he, 
 " is an error that no philologist could hold." " Any person who 
 has ever passed the threshold of the temple of philology must 
 know," &c. " Had I no other evidence that the President, however 
 great a man he may be in other respects, is not a philologist, I could 
 take his measure from this single observation." P. 493. The contro- 
 versialist, who, like Dr. Carson, habitually indulges in this mode 
 of assailing those who happen not to agree with him, ought him- 
 self to be infallible. But if he not only refuses to meet the ar- 
 gument as a whole, but blunders in assailing even his one se- 
 lected point of attack, then let him not expect to escape the 
 natural recoil on himself. Whilst he attempts to take my mea- 
 sure, let him not be surprised if others measure him. 
 
 Before repelling this attack, I shall take occasion to state more 
 
262 ARGUMENT FROM PREPOSITIONS. § 80. 
 
 fully the nature of the argument from prepositions, and to illus- 
 trate and confirm it by additional examples. 
 
 When considering the source from which purification proceeds, 
 none can deny that the prepositions ix and d'Tro often follow xa&a^i- 
 ?'w. Thus Chrysostom (Hom. 6, in Math.) says — wCtts^ s^ vSa- 
 rog xai irvs6(xc/.Tos, outw a-TTo Sax^uov xai s'^oixoXo^'/jO'sojf xa^ai^ofxs^a 
 ifaXiv, i. e. as we derive purity in the first instance from water 
 and the Spirit, so, if we sin afterwards, we again derive purity 
 from tears and confession. Here both aiio and h follow xa^aj^w, to 
 purify. With this compare the use of a-Tfo after ^am-rKfiJ^a, in 
 Origen — jixaxa^io^ 6 ^yj 5soixsvos [3 WK'Titf^ar og tov d-ro TtuPog. Happy 
 is he who does not need that baptism, i. e. purification, which is 
 to be derived from fire. Compare also the language of Basil, 
 on which my remark was based, to ((BctifrKfixa) s| vSarog iig {ksra- 
 voiav xai TO (/Sd'^'TjtT'jxa) ix <r(v£{j[Larog hg ava^svvTjtfjv. The Bap- 
 tism, i. e. purification, which is derived from water unto repent- 
 ance — the baptism, i. e. purification, which is derived from the 
 Holy Spirit unto regeneration. With this, next compare Basil's 
 assertion, shortly after, that those who have sinned in a less de- 
 gree Siovrai tou a-ro tou i)5oLTog xada^i(f^ov, need the purification de- 
 rived from water — but those who have committed aggravated sins 
 need tou sx tov firvfog xa^a^tf^ixou, the purification which proceeds 
 from fire ; let him also remember that in this connexion Basil de- 
 fines ^cuitTKfij.a as xa&a^Kf^og, and who can doubt what is the force 
 of sx in the phrases (ociTrrKfixa s| vdarog and (ScLTCrid^La ix •n'vsu/jLa- 
 Tog ? The prepositions that follow the sense immerse are ^v or 
 slg ; these are omitted ; those that follow xa^a^jtfjxof are airo and ix ; 
 these are both used after ^u'n'TKfixu, and I declare them to be at 
 war with the idea of immersion. But let us not stop here. Let 
 us look at the other prepositions which follow xa&a^i<f(i6g. I re- 
 mark, therefore, that before the word denoting the pollution from 
 which we are cleansed, d-Tfo is used in connexion with xa&a^i^u. 
 Thus Paul, in 2 Cor. vii. 1, says — xa^a^/tfoj/xsv kavroug a-n-o iravrog 
 jaoXutfjaou tfa^xoj xai <7rvsu|xaToj — Let us purify ourselves from all 
 pollution of the flesh and the Spirit. So Heb. ix. 14, affj^a X^itf. 
 
§ 80. ARGUMENT FROM PREPOSITIONS. 263 
 
 Tov xct&a^isT rrjv o'uvsitJrjCiv Ojxwv ct-Tro vgx^ojv s^yuv — The blood of 
 Christ shall cleanse your conscienceyrom dead works. Compare 
 now the use of diro to denote the same thing after (Saifri^u in 
 Justin Martyr — (Ba'TTiff^riTS t-^v 4'^X'*!^ d-n'o 0^7%, diro (p^ovou, dnto 
 IxKfovg. Be baptized as to your soul from anger, envy, hatred, &c. 
 Who does not see that the preposition d'To, so used, demands the 
 sense " be purified mentally from anger, envy, hatred, and lo ! 
 your body is pure !" 
 
 The preposition ev, after jSaitTii^u, is ambiguous. It may be 
 used to denote in or hy. But 8id, followed by the genitive, is not 
 ambiguous ; it denotes that by which an effect is produced. 
 Hence it follows xada^i^w, to denote that by which purity is pro- 
 duced. Hence, in the account of baptisms ascribed to Athanasius, 
 this language occurs — -ttoXXo; did ifraKffjidTC^v jxoXuvavre^ ro dyiov 
 /Sa-Tfrj'j'fAa Sid 6ax^v(jjv sxa^a^jV^igo'av. " Many, who had by sins de- 
 filed their hol}^ baptism, have been purified by tears." But the 
 same author describes the sixth baptism on the list as to ^dirnd- 
 jxa Sid Saxp6(j}v. Who can help seeing that 8id, so used, demands 
 the sense purification by tears, in the last case just as in the 
 first? The sense immersion would demand sv, i. e. immersion 
 in tears, and cannot be followed by Sid in the same way as xa^a- 
 
 This use of Sid with the genitive after (BaitTi^cA), is very exten- 
 sive. But in Gregory Thaumaturgus occurs a case of peculiar 
 power. He believed that Christ, in fact, was immersed, but he does 
 not employ ^a'Trri^w to convey this idea, but xaraSvu. Thus he 
 represents Christ as saying to John — xaraSvcfov (uis toTs Io|'(Javou 
 ^sTd^QiS. " Immerse me in the streams of Jordan." But after ^aie- 
 Ti'^w he uses Sid with the genitive, so as to demand the sense to 
 purify — fSdiTTKfov (xs <rov fAs'XXovra /3a'ff<r»^Siv rovg 'r^KtrsCovras Si^ 
 vSaros, xa.1 crvsufAarocr, xoli ifv^os. " Purify me who am about to purify 
 those who believe by water, and the Spirit, and fire." He then 
 changes the construction ; instead of ^la with the genitive, using 
 the dative in the causative sense, as an equivalent, and in apposi- 
 tion, and thus proceeds — u^an duvajxsvw ufoirXuvon twv afAa^rjwv <rov 
 
264 ARGUMENT FROM PREPOSITIONS. § 80. 
 
 /So'^/do^ov, 'jrvsuixari Suva^SMOJ rovg •)(cnxovs 'rrvsup.arixovs a'n'S^y a(fa(f&ai, 
 'n'v^i 'jfScpvxQTt xaraxaisiv ras tojv avojut/iifjLaTwv axav^aj — " by water, I 
 say, which is able to wash away the filth of sin, by the Spirit, 
 who can make the earthly spiritual ; by fire, whose nature it is to 
 burn up the thorns of sin." Here he exhibits the purifying energy 
 of the water, the Spirit, and fire, by which Christ was to purify 
 believers, not in which he was to immerse them ; the construction 
 and scope forbid and exclude the idea of immersion. 
 
 ■ This use of Si a after iBairri^u occurs very impressively in the 
 Acta Passionis S. Pamphillii Martyris. The writer, speaking of 
 two who were burnt to death, says, SusTv tw 6ia ir\)^os Ida-iiTid^iMn 
 TsXsjo^sWwv. They two being perfected by the purification &2/ fire 
 — Gallandias Bibliotheca, Vet. Pat. Venice, 1765. Vol. iv. p. 
 43. 
 
 Eusebius, Hist. Ecc. Lib. 6, Cap. 4, says of a female catechu- 
 men, who was burnt before her baptism by water, to ^anrnd^a <ro 
 SicLirxjfogXoi^ovda rov /3»ov g|sX7;Xu^£v. *' She received the purifica- 
 tion which is hy fire, and departed from this life." 
 
 John of Damascus, Paris, 1712, Vol. i. p. 261, says of the sixth 
 baptism, that it was to (3airTi(f^ci 5ioL jxsTavoia^ xcci 5axpvo)v. A pu- 
 rification by repentance and tears ; not an immersion in repentance 
 and tears. After referring to John's statement, I baptize you with 
 water, but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost, he adds, 
 lepoxa&oLipsi ouv o loavvT]^ S'ttI to -Trvsu/xa 6ia tou vSoltos, therefore John 
 purifies beforehand by water, to prepare the way for the Spirit. 
 When /Sa'TTTi^w and xada^/^w thus in the same way take after 
 them dia, with the genitive, and xa^api,^w, as here, takes the place of 
 [Bairri^u, who does not see that the words are synonymous 1 
 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, Gregory Nazianz., and Clemens Alexand., 
 furnish passages which will place the argument from prepositions 
 in a still more striking light. 
 
 Gregory Na!zianz., vol. i. p. 641, thus speaks of baptism, "In- 
 asmuch as we are composed of two natures, the body and the 
 soul, the one visible, and the other invisible, purification is of two 
 kinds {diTTTi xut rj xa^aptfjg), that is, by water, and by the Spirit 
 
§ 80. ARGUMENT FROM PREPOSITIONS. 265 
 
 (Si' u6"aroj TS (priij.i xal <:r\isv^aros), the former being received visibly 
 and bodily, the other concurring invisibly and spiritually, the one 
 being typical, the other real and effectual, purifying the depths of 
 the soul." 
 
 In the same strain speaks Cyril of Jerusalem, p. 15 ; Cateche- 
 sis 3; Paris, 1631. 
 
 " As man is of a two-fold nature, being composed of body and 
 spirit, so also is purification of two kinds ((5i-7rXouv xa< to xa^aptfiov), 
 one spiritual, by that which is spiritual, the other bodily, by that 
 which is material ; the water purifies the body — the spirit seals 
 the soul." 
 
 In striking correspondence with this, Clemens Alexand., vol. 2, 
 •p. 988, declares that baptism is of two kinds (to /Sa-TrrjCfxa ouv ^i«r- 
 XoCv avaXoYwj), one material, by water, the other spiritual, by the 
 Spirit (to jxsv aKf&rirov Si' vSaros to 6s vot^tov 6ia 'ni'vSu^MTOs). 
 
 So then, Gregory Nazianz. speaks o^Sittyj xa&oip(fig, Cyril of ^i-r- 
 Xouv xaScLpcfiov, and Clemens, of SiirXovv /Sa-n-Tjo'fxa. In each case 
 one of the two kinds is material, and the other is spiritual, analo- 
 gous to it. The purification is 6i' vSarog xal crvsyju-aTo? — the bap- 
 tism also is 6i' vSuTog and Siol -rvsupLaTog-. 
 
 Nothing can more clearly show that the sense of ^oLTerid^ia is 
 not immersion, but purification. Had it been the design of the 
 writer to describe two kinds of immersion, one in water, and the 
 other in the Spirit, he would have used s/j or ^v, and not Sik, 
 
 Here then is unanswerable proof that xa^ap<j'/f, xadaptffov, and 
 /Sa-TrTiCfjia, are in these passages used as synonymes. 
 
 The analogy between spiritual purification and material purifi- 
 cation, is by Clement viewed in this case as corresponding to the 
 analogy between spiritual and material fire ; for as material water 
 quenches material fire, sO does the Spirit, when it purifies the 
 mind, defend it against spiritual fire. 
 
 He also elsewhere traces the analogy between heavenly spiri- 
 tual water, and earthly material water — the latter purifying the 
 body, the former the soul. 
 
 Such being the facts, it needs no argument to show how these 
 
 12 
 
266 DR. Carson's magnanimity. § 81. 
 
 writers understood the contrast between the baptism of John 
 and of Christ. " I indeed purify you by water, but he shall 
 'purify you with the Holy Ghost," must have been the sense 
 attached by them to the passage. 
 
 The fact that h here follows fBa'rtri^c^, and that in itself it can 
 be rendered either by or in, emboldened Dr. Carson to claim that 
 the sense is, to immerse in water, and in the Holy Ghost. 
 Against this view Eusebius of Cesarea expressly testifies. He 
 first declares that sxxadapisi iv irvsuiLa-n, in Is. iv. 4, does not differ 
 in sense from (^aTtrldsi sv <n'\is6ixccli as used by John, and then adds, 
 " In the one case (Isaiah iv. 4), fiery words, powerfully affecting 
 them, wrought in them a purification from sin. In like manner 
 it is said that the Saviour would purfy (^airlidsiv), not with water, 
 but with the Holy Ghost, and with fire." Nothing can be more 
 explicit. He thus removes the ambiguity of sv after /3a';r7jjw, 
 and gives to the dative preceded by sv the same causative sense 
 which is indicated by Si a, and the Genitive, just as in the sen- 
 tence last quoted from Gregory Thaum, the causative sense was 
 given to the dative without a preposition, as equivalent to 6ia, with 
 the genitive. Thus are our translators defended for rendering 
 the passage, I indeed baptize with water, but he shall baptize with 
 the Holy Ghost, instead of immerse in water and the Holy Ghost, 
 as Dr. Carson claims. 
 
 Thus plain is it that/3a'7r'7<^w is used with the same pi epositions 
 as are used with xa^apj^w, and that these prepositions demand the 
 sense to purify in both cases alike, and in both exclude the sense 
 to immerse. 
 
 § 81. Dr. Carson^ s Magnanimity. 
 
 This argument I indicated briefly in § 56 ; and in § 64, at the 
 close, I illustrated the similar use of dice after /Sa-TTj^w and xa^apj Jw 
 in parallel columns, also in § 50 I illustrated the use of airo after 
 fBuirri^u, by Justin Martyr. I regard it as an argument, of itself 
 perfectly decisive and unanswerable. 
 
§81. DR. CARSON "S MAGNANIBIITY . 267 
 
 Passing by all this, Dr. Carson selects from § 55 the assertion 
 that Basil uses sx after f^airTiCixa, a preposition at war with the idea 
 to immerse. Here he calls to mind the English phrase to dip up 
 a bucket of water, used, he thinks, by Dr. Miller, and says that on 
 the same principle it could be proved that dip does not mean im- 
 merse. " Let a foreigner interpret this on the principle of Presi- 
 dent Beecher. Up, says the critic, signifies ascension ; dipping, 
 then, cannot denote immersing, for this implies sinking. The pre- 
 position is at war with immerse as the meaning of the word dip. 
 Dip must then signify to raise, or draw, or lift, not to immerse — 
 and this critic would know English as the President knows Greek." 
 
 This is a fair instance of Dr. Carson's mental enlargement. 
 He merely picks a single flaw at most, but does not touch the 
 argument as a whole. Before him is Basil's explicit definition of 
 (BaviTKf^a as meaning purification. Of this he says nothing. But 
 an imaginary error as to sx gives him a chance to reiterate his 
 attacks on my capacity ; it cannot be passed by. But he does not 
 even here find one flaw. He does not prove that the preposition 
 wp, can follow the idea to immerse — for either that mode of ex- 
 pression is elliptical, and is what grammarians call a constructio 
 pregnans, so that up belongs to a verb implied, or else the verb dip 
 has changed its sense, and does not mean immerse. When men 
 speak of dipping water, or of dipping out water, do they mean that 
 the water in question, and which is said to be dipped, is immersed 
 into water or into anything else ? Directly the reverse. It is 
 taken out of water. Surely there is no immersion in taking 
 water out of water. But as it is taken out hy dipping a vessel in, 
 it is said to be dipped out, that is taken out hy dipping. To dip 
 out water, then, is to dip a vessel into water and then take out what 
 enters it. So to dip up a bucket of water, is to dip a bucket into 
 water and fill it, and then raise it up. Up, then, does not belong 
 to dip. For it is absurd in the very nature of things to say that 
 the preposition up can indicate the downward motion of immer- 
 sion. It indicates the upward motion of a bucket which has 
 been filled by first dipping it downward into water. 
 
268 DR. carson's magnanimity. § 81. 
 
 And in one case Dr. Carson himself finds occasion to resort to 
 the same principle. I had urged the use of cc-n-o as at war with the 
 idea immerse in the expression fSaz^ri^^oixsvos a-ro vsxpoiJ, baptized 
 from a dead body. He immediately resorts to ellipsis and a 
 pregnant construction. He asserts the sense to be, immersed in 
 water, and thus purified from the pollution contracted by touching 
 a dead body. Thus he connects/ro??i with purijied instead of im- 
 ?nerse. Why then did he not see that an ellipsis could connect 
 up with a verb denoting ascent, and dip with a preposition denot- 
 ino- descent? The same solution must be given to the case 
 alluded to by him in 2 Mace. ch. i. v. 21, where airo^a'^Tc^ is 
 translated in our English version, draw up. In this case /BocttIoj 
 implies that a vessel was to be dipped into the water, and airo 
 that its contents were then to be removed from it and lifted up. 
 But who does not see the absurdity of the idea that the preposition 
 up can denote downward motion ? Did a sane man ever speak of 
 a stone as sinking up to the bottom of a lake, or of immersing a 
 person upwards to the bottom 1 So long, then, as dip means to im- 
 merse, up cannot indicate the motion denoted by it. 
 
 A similar pregnant construction is found in the phrase to bury 
 from a house, denoting to carry the body from the house, and 
 bury it. From refers to the verb of motion implied. So in 
 Greek, Xfs scpavri iig oSov, literally a lion appeared into the path — 
 that is, came into the path and appeared. All who have read ihe 
 recent results of German grammarians, know how decidedly they 
 refuse to connect prepositions with verbs whose idea of motion or 
 of rest, does not correspond with the sense of the preposition, 
 resorting to the constructio pregnans to escape the anomaly. 
 
 In the words of Dr. Carson, " I cannot pursue this subject here, 
 I shall merely suggest it to literary men." I will, however, add, 
 that " any person who has ever passed the threshold of the temple 
 of philology must know" that such pregnant constructions are 
 exceedingly common, and those who have not studied them 
 enough to know it, I would refer to Winer's and Stuart's 
 Grammars of the New Testament, and Kuhner's Greek Grammar. 
 
§ 82. DR. carson's first mode of solution, 269 
 
 Dr. Carson, in view of such criticisms, had no excuse for taunt- 
 inpr me or any one else with " schoolboy criticism." 
 
 "& 
 
 § 82. Dr. Carson's first alleged mode of solving all my quotations 
 from the Fathers. 
 
 I have remarked that Dr. Carson has adopted two unlike 
 theories, and boldly declared that each will solve all the facts 
 produced by me from the Fathers. I will now state the first. 
 
 This is advanced in endeavoring to explain why the Fathers 
 called clinic sprinkling or perfusion, in case of the sick, baptism. 
 His theory is this, — "Cyprian calls perfusion the ecclesiastical 
 baptism, as distinguished from baptism in the proper sense of the 
 term. The persons perfused in their beds on account of sickness 
 were not supposed to be properly baptized ; but they received the 
 ecclesiastical baptism, that is what the church, in such cases, ad- 
 mitted as a valid substitute for baptism. This fact is conclusive, 
 and will afford an answer to all the passages referred to by 
 President Beecher, to prove a secondary meaning in the use of the 
 word among the Fathers. It was not a secondary meaning be- 
 cause it never went into general use ; but it is called a baptism 
 because it served the same purpose." 
 
 The amount of this is, those things which the church received 
 as valid substitutes for immersion, were called immersion because 
 they served the same purpose. Now admitting this to be true in 
 fact, which it is not, how far would it apply ? How many valid 
 substitutes for immersion did the church in her administration of 
 baptism admit ? I answer one, and one only, and that is perfu- 
 sion or sprinkling in case of sickness. This solution, therefore, 
 cannot extend beyond the case of clinic baptism, even if true. 
 How then can it solve all my examples ? How can it meet my 
 argument from the use of prepositions ? How can it explain the 
 definitions of Basil, Athanasius, and Zonaras ? How can it ex- 
 plain the fact that the sprinkling of blood, and the sprinkling 
 of the ashes of a heifer, are called baptisms? Did the primi- 
 
270 DR. carson's second mode of solution. § 83. 
 
 live church sprinkle with blood or with ashes, and deem them 
 valid substitutes for immersion ? Did they regard repentance and 
 tears as a valid substitute for immersion ? Did they regard 
 purification by future fire as a valid substitute for immersion in 
 this world ? Did they regard purification by the truth, or by 
 afflictions, as a valid substitute for immersion ? But I need not 
 proceed. It might seem as if Dr. Carson made the assertion that 
 this theory will solve all facts, merely for effect, for he does not 
 try to solve by it a single example except the cases of clinic 
 baptism, and to none others can it even in pretence be applied. 
 It begins with them, and from the very nature of the case it ends 
 with them. But in its place I shall show that the theory itself is 
 false. I proceed to the second theory. 
 
 § 83. Dr. Carson^ s second mode of Solution. 
 
 This theory is taken from the fact that Justin Martyr calls cir- 
 cumcision a baptism. Thus speaks Dr. Carson. " He some- 
 times also speaks of circumcision as a baptism, or as agreeing in 
 the emblem, though altogether different in the things and in the 
 words that designate them." He then proceeds, with a pompous 
 hnplication of his own superior knowledge and of my ignorance, 
 thus to admonish me. " Let President Beecher study this, and it 
 will show how the Fathers can call various things by the name 
 of baptism, without importing that they are included in the mean- 
 ing of the word. All his examples may be solved by this single 
 fact." 
 
 Let it now be noticed that tiiis theory abandons the ground of 
 the former theory. That the church admits a thing as a valid 
 substitute for immersion is not now the reason why it is called 
 baptism, but the fact that it agrees with haptism in the emblem. 
 Hence rites never used by the church and not admitted as a sub- 
 stitute for baptism, as, for example, circumcision, can be called 
 baptism. Let us examine this second theory. 
 
 What then does Dr. Carson mean by agreeing in the emblem ? 
 
§ 83. DR. carson's second mode of solution. 271 
 
 According to authorized usage, an emblem is a visible object or 
 act, which represents another thing to the mind. A balance is an 
 emblem of justice, a crown, of royalty, white robes, of moral 
 purity, sprinkling or washing with pure water, of purification. 
 Taking the term in this sense circumcision does not agree in the 
 emblem with immersion, for the emblematical acts in the two rites 
 are entirely unlike. So is the act of immersion in water entirely 
 unlike the act of pouring, or of sprinkling with blood, or water, 
 or ashes. Taking the word emblem then in its true and proper 
 sense, immersion agrees in the emblem with nothing but immer- 
 sion. It is perfectly unique. 
 
 But there is reason to believe that Dr. Carson here uses the 
 word in a new and peculiar sense, i. e. to denote that which the 
 emblem represents. He does not indeed so define the word, but 
 although it is possible that Dr. Carson has written what is so 
 obviously false as the preceding statements would imply, taking 
 the word emblem in its proper sense, yet it is not probable, and on 
 the ground of so strong an improbability I depart from the pri- 
 mary sense of the word, and introduce a secondary sense. On 
 p. 465, he clearly uses the word in the same sense, speaking of 
 purification as " the emblem of the ordinance," that is, " the thing 
 emblematically meant by the ordinance." On p. 386, he seems 
 also to use the word in this sense, stating that " tlie application of 
 water under the law and under the gospel has the same emblem of 
 purification," that is, it has purification in each case as the thing 
 emblematically represented. It is curious enough to remark that 
 from this new and peculiar use, he passes in the next sentence to 
 the true and common use, speaking of a burial in water as an 
 emblem of Christ's burial as well as of purification. Here 
 emblem denotes the emblematic act, and not the thing em- 
 blematized. Let this change of sense in so definite and well 
 established a word as emblem, teach the friends of Dr. Carson 
 the great ease with which new senses of words are introduced, 
 and the strong tendency of the human mind to introduce them, 
 and that the same word can be used in different and even anti- 
 
272 DR. Carson's second mode of solution. § 83. 
 
 thetic senses in the same page, or even sentence — for no 
 senses can be more essentially different than the emblematical 
 act, and the thing of which it is an emblem. 
 
 Taking the word emblem in this new sense, it is true that since 
 both circumcision and immersion represent purification, they so 
 far *' agree in the emblem," i. e.*in the thing emblematized. In 
 this sense also, immersion " agrees in the emblem" with sprink- 
 ling, whether with water, or with blood, or with the ashes of a 
 heifer; it also agrees with perfusion. And from this agreement 
 in the thing emblematized, Dr. Carson infers that the Fathers can 
 call these rites baptisms (i. e. immersions), without importing that 
 they are included in the meaning of the word, just as circumci- 
 sion is called a baptism, though the act in circumcision differs 
 from the act in baptism, and the meaning of the word circumci- 
 sion from that of the word baptism. He calls on me to study this 
 fact, and asserts that it alone will solve all my examples. 
 
 I have before studied the fact, and have since studied Dr. 
 Carson's doctrine as to the thing emblematized by immersion, and 
 the result is that. Dr. Carson himself being judge, this fact will 
 solve none of my examples, but is an unanswerable argument 
 against him. For according to Dr. Carson's own views, no rite 
 of purification which omits immersion, can so far agree with the 
 rite of immersion in the thing emblematized, as to justify the ap- 
 plication to it of the name immersion ; for, 
 
 1. Death, burial, and resurrection, are an essential and insepa- 
 rable part of the thing emblematized in the rite of immersion. 
 
 2. The act of immersion emblematizes nothing else but death, 
 burial, and resurrection. 
 
 3. The name immersion Avas chosen instead of purification, in 
 order to direct the mind to these ideas. 
 
 4. Hence, on Dr. Carson's own grounds, it is absurd to trans- 
 fer such a name to any rite which excludes immersion, and, of 
 course, all which immersion, as such, symbolizes. 
 
 That these are Dr. Carson's views, his own words shall prove, 
 p. 475. " Though the rite of baptism is an emblematical purifi 
 
§ 83. DR. Carson's second mode of solution. 273 
 
 cation, yet purification is not the only thing represented by the 
 emblem. The communion of the believer with Christ, in his death, 
 burial, and resurrection, and his salvation by that union, and only 
 by that union, is also represented. Katharismos, then, was not 
 suitable as the appropriated name of the ordinance. ^^ 
 
 Here we are told that death, burial, and resurrection belong to 
 the thing emblematized by the rite of immersion, as really as 
 purification. He then tells us why this particular name of the 
 rite was very important. A name so generic as purification 
 could not represent them. The specific term immersion was 
 needed. Again, p. 153, " Death, burial, and resurrection, we do 
 not consider as the primary meaning of baptism ; and washing 
 away sin a secondary meaning. It takes both to make one mean- 
 ing. It not only signifies washing away sin through faith in the 
 blood of Christ, but denotes that such sins are washed away by 
 our fellowship with him in his death. Washing away of sin is 
 the thing which it always signifies ; but this is not the whole of 
 its meaning. It is then to no purpose that Dr. Wardlaw insists 
 that sprinkling and pouring may be an emblem of cleansing. 
 They are no emblems of death, burial, and resurrection, which 
 are figured in baptism." 
 
 Hqjice, the ideas, death, burial, and resurrection, are not sepa- 
 rable from the thing emblematically meant in baptism, and as it 
 regards these ideas, no rites that omit immersion " agree in the 
 emblem" with the rite that includes it. 
 
 Again, the name immersion indicates these peculiar ideas alone, 
 and does not indicate purification, and no act but immersion can 
 designate these ideas. P. 439 : " It is the water in baptism that 
 denotes purification, not the name of the rite. Lnmersion is an em- 
 blem of the believer's communion and oneness with Christ, in his 
 death, burial, and resurrection. If mere purification were desig- 
 nated by baptism, sprinkling or pouring might have been used as 
 well as immerse. But immersion represents the whole spiritual 
 body of Christ as dying with him, buried with him, risen with 
 
 12* 
 
274 DR. carson's second mode of solution. § 83. 
 
 him. As members of the body of Christ, they have done and 
 suffered whatever Christ has done and suffered for them. True 
 views of the import of baptism are essentially connected with 
 clear views of the gospel." 
 
 Nothing can more clearly set forth the great importance of the 
 word immersion, and also of that which is emblematized exclu- 
 sively by the act of immersion. The omission of this part of the 
 emblem throws out of view the great truths of the gospel, which 
 it symbolizes. Of course this part of the emblem is absolutely 
 essential. 
 
 Hence, p. 381, he says, — " The immersion of the whole body 
 is essential to baptism, not because nothing but immersion can be 
 an emblem of purification, but because immersion is the thing 
 commanded, and because that, without immersion, there is no em- 
 blem of death, burial, and resurrection, which are in the emblem^ 
 equally with purijicati.on.^^ And p. 388, he says: " Immersion is 
 commanded because of its symbolical meaning," and is " essen- 
 tial." What I have said is then plainly true, viz. according to 
 Dr. Carson. 
 
 1. If the thing emblematized by immersion is taken as a whole, 
 no rite that omits immersion, does or can agree with it in the em- 
 blem. Essential parts are excluded, viz. death, burial, and re- 
 surrection. 
 
 2. These excluded parts, according to Dr. C, are not separable 
 from the thing designed to be emblematized. They belong to it 
 as essentially as does purification. 
 
 3. The name immersion was chosen and given with the special 
 design to fix the mind on death, burial, and resurrection, which 
 purification could not do. 
 
 Immersion, then, if Dr. C. is right, is the specific name of a 
 peculiar kind of purification, and is totally unfit to be used like a 
 generic name, and as such applied to any and every rite that 
 symbolizes purification, and that alone. 
 
 And yet the facts are these, that the Fathers did call sprinkling 
 
§ 83. DR. Carson's second mode of solution. 275 
 
 with blood, or water, or the ashes of a heifer, baptism. That they 
 called pouring a baptism, and that they called circumcision a 
 baptism . 
 
 My solution is this ; baptism has the sense purification, and is 
 a generic term, and includes all species of purification, however 
 unlike in form, and can therefore be applied to them all. 
 
 Dr. Carson's is this ; immersion is the name of a complex rite 
 of purification, in which the water is the only emblem of purifi- 
 cation, and the act immersion is not an emblem of purification at 
 all, but of death, burial, and resurrection, and was chosen for 
 this end, and yet this name may nevertheless be applied to all 
 rites of purification, although they exclude immersion and all the 
 ideas of which it is an emblem. 
 
 The bare statement of this theory is enough to show how utterly 
 absurd it is. 
 
 According to my solution, we apply the name of a genus to 
 any species comprehended in it. This is natural, and in accor= 
 dance with daily use. We call the oak, the pine, the apple, and 
 the orange alike trees. 
 
 But Dr. Carson transfers the name which, according to him, 
 denotes that which distinguishes one species of purification from 
 all others, to all the species contained in the genus. This is absurd. 
 It is at war with all usage. Ebony is a peculiar kind of tree. 
 Would it not be absurd to apply its name to the pine, and to every 
 other species of trees, although entirely devoid of its peculiarities ? 
 
 Nay, more, as it regards the term baptism, the case is much 
 stronger. Dr. Carson being judge. 
 
 Though the rite of immersion is a kind of purification, yet it 
 is a kind so peculiar, that it needs the specific name immersion 
 to denote its peculiarity. This peculiarity is that it symbolizes a 
 purification effected by union with Christ, in his death, burial, 
 and resurrection. A true view of immersion is essentially con- 
 nected with these great ideas. For this reason, the act immer- 
 sion is needed, and sprinkling and pouring will not answer. For 
 the same reason the peculiar and specific name immersion is 
 
276 DR. carson's self-contradiction. § 84. 
 
 needed, and was chosen, and purification will not answer. And 
 yet this name, so peculiar, select, specific, and distinctive, can, ac- 
 cording to Dr. Carson, be applied to any rite whatever, if it does 
 but symbolize purification, although without any reference to 
 death, burial, or resurrection. We might far more rationally 
 call pine, oak, and all other trees, ebony. To such absurd shifts 
 is Dr. Carson driven, to avoid the conclusion that baptism has the 
 generic sense for purification. 
 
 §84. Dr. Carson's Self -Contradiction. 
 
 But in taking this ground. Dr. Carson directly contradicts what 
 he elsewhere asserts. In reply to Mr. Hall and Dr. Miller, he 
 asserts that rites of purification which exclude immersion, cannot 
 be called baptism, and never were. 
 
 He tells Dr. Miller, on p. 392, that " sprinkling cannot be call- 
 ed baptism, with more propriety than sand can be called water. 
 This I do not leave as an inference from my doctrines. I wish to 
 proclaim it to all my brethren." 
 
 In reply to Mr. Hall, he ridicules the idea that sprinklings were 
 ever called baptisms. Mr. H. humbly supposed that the practice 
 of a people who called a purifying by sprinkling or pouring a 
 baptism, would have some little weight upon the question. Dr. 
 Carson replies : 
 
 " A people who called a purifying, by sprinkling or pouring, a 
 baptism ! ! ! Where is such a people ? Not under the heavens. 
 The facts alleged to prove this are all mere assumptions." p. 401. 
 Again — " If one instance of sprinkling was called immersion, I 
 would give up the point of univocal meaning." p. 409. Again, 
 Mr. Hall alleges that Paul calls sprinklings baptisms, in Heb. ix. 
 10. Dr. Carson pointedly contradicts him, charges him with 
 deliberate and intentional falsehood, and then adds — 
 
 " The subtlety of Satan himself cannot plausibly contrive to 
 force these sprinklings into the divers baptisms." p. 405. From 
 such positions there is no retreat. 
 
§ 84. DR. Carson's self-contradiction. 277 
 
 And yet, when I bring testimony to prove that the Fathers do 
 call sprinkling with water, blood, and ashes, baptisms, and that in 
 more than one instance, Dr. Carson does not, as he promises, give 
 up the point of univocal meaning, but simply turns round and 
 contradicts himself. 
 
 Anything, he now tells us, can be called immersion, if it agrees 
 with in it being an emblem of purification. It is neither absurd 
 nor contrary to fact. Dr. Carson can now do what not even the 
 subtlety of Satan could plausibly effect. He does it with perfect 
 ease, with a single dash of his pen — a single bold assertion. 
 
 And it is not a little curious, and perfectly characteristic of 
 Dr. Carson, that he first soundly castigates Dr. Miller and Mr. 
 Hall, because they had not the sense to see that sprinklings could 
 not, by any possibility, be called baptisms, and never were, and 
 then turns round and castigates me for not having the sense to see 
 that they could be called baptisms, with perfect ease, and that the 
 Fathers did so call them. But if the Fathers did so call them, 
 why could not Paul, in Heb. ix. 10, on the same ground? 
 
 It was, no doubt, very convenient for Dr. Carson, as emergencies 
 arose, to resort for shelter to both sides of a contradiction. And 
 it was perfectly in character for him to castigate others for not 
 agreeing with him on both sides. But to a controversialist who 
 so often insults his antagonists, as devoid of all perspicacity, and 
 who is eulogized as the Jonathan Edwards of the nineteenth cen- 
 tury, it is not in the highest degree creditable to be detected in 
 such manifest self-contradictions, and such sorry and futile eva- 
 sions of manifest and indisputable truth. 
 
 In the prt sent case, Dr Carson's first ground was correct. If 
 the act of immersion is the emblem, not of purification, but of 
 death, burial, and resurrection ; if the word immersion was chosen 
 as the name of the rite, for this reason ; and if, for the same reason, 
 purification was not suitable to be the appropriated name of the 
 rite, and if what immersion denotes is essential to the kind of 
 purification emblematized in the rite, then it is absurd to transfer 
 
278 DR. carson's self-contradiction. § 84. 
 
 ihe significant, specific, and appropriated name immersion, to any 
 rites of purification in which there is no. immersion. 
 
 But suppose that this theory could explain the cases quoted by 
 me, in which sprinkling is called baptism ; what has it to do with 
 the great body of my proofs ? Basil defines /Sa-TrrKrfj^a as meaning 
 purification. What has it to do with this ? This definition is 
 enough to settle the question, for it professedly defines the word 
 as used by John the Baptist and Christ, at the time of the institu- 
 tion of the rite. Dr. C.'s theory does not touch this case. It 
 does not touch the definition of Zonaras, nor the assertion of 
 Athanasius, nor the argument from the use of prepositions, nor 
 the testimony of Jerome, Origen, Eusebius, Basil, Cyril of 
 Alexandria, and Theodoret, on Is. iv. 4, nor that of Chrysostom, 
 Gregory of Nyssa, Cyril of Alexandria,. and Theophylact, on Jn. 
 iii. 25. In short, if true, it would affect only a i'ew cases, and 
 leave the main body of proofs totally untouched. Could Di\ 
 Carson have believed that he had looked intelligently through the 
 subject, when he called on me to study it, and affirmed that his 
 theory, so false, and withal so limited in its application if true, 
 could solve all my examples ? Or did he make so bold an as- 
 sertion merely for effect on the minds of his confiding followers ? 
 Let those who choose, judge. It is enough for me to unfold the 
 facts. 
 
 But while both of Dr. Carson's theories fail, the view that I ad- 
 vocate explains all facts, including the one adduced by him from 
 Justin Martyr. He calls circumcision a baptism. It is, in fact, 
 a purification, and, for this reason, is called a baptism. So Ma- 
 carius calls it, and so explains it. Comparing Jews and Chris- 
 tians, he says of the latter, " the heavenly knife cuts off the su- 
 perfluity of the mind, that is, the polluted foreskin of sin. With 
 them was a purification {(Baitli(f^M) sanctifying the flesh. With 
 us a purification {fja^rtlK^ixa) of the Holy Ghost and of fire, for this 
 John proclaimed, He shall purify you with the Holy Ghost, and 
 with fire." Gallandius, Bibliolheca Vet. Pat. Venice, 1765, vol. 
 7, p. 147. 
 
§ 85. CLINIC BAPTISM. 279 
 
 Jerome also, commenting on Jer. iv. 4, " Circumcise yourselves 
 to the Lord, and take away the foreskins of your heart," thus ex- 
 plains the figure, " by circumcision he represents purification, and 
 by foreskins, sin." 
 
 § 85. Clinic Baptisms, 
 
 Dr. Carson's first theory, I have said, is not only insufficient, if 
 true, but it is also false, and cannot solve the only cases where it 
 could be applied, if true. 
 
 His theory is this ; Cyprian, that great high church bishop, 
 that father of ecclesiastical power, when he calls perfusion an 
 ecclesiastical baptism, does not regard an ecclesiastical baptism as 
 a real and proper baptism, but only as an ecclesiastical substitute 
 for it, so that the antithesis to an ecclesiastical baptism is immer- 
 sion. 
 
 Both of Dr. Carson's replies to me are full of exclamations at 
 my ignorance. 1 will not imitate or retort. But I will say, that 
 the slightest knowledge of ecclesiastical history would have taught 
 Dr. Carson that the antithesis of an ecclesiastical baptism was 
 not immersion, but a heretical baptism, a baptism out of the 
 church. If Dr. Carson knew nothing of the controversy of 
 Cyprian and the eastern bishops with pope Stephen, on this point, 
 he might, at least, have learnt this from the end of Cyprian's own 
 letter, in which he expressly contrasts a clinic baptism, perform- 
 ed in the church, with a heretical baptism, performed out of the 
 church, which Stephen regarded as valid, but Cyprian as a nul- 
 lity. If such baptisms of heretics out of the church are regard- 
 ed as valid, and clinic baptisms in it as invalid, then, according 
 to Cyprian, it will follow " that those who out of the church are 
 polluted with profane water, among adversaries and antichrists, 
 will be considered as baptized, but those who are baptized in the 
 church, will be considered as having obtained less forgiveness 
 and divine grace than they, and the heretics will be so much 
 honored, that those who come from them will not be asked 
 
280 CLINIC BAPTISM. § 85. 
 
 whether they have been immersed or sprinkled, whether they are 
 clinics or peripatetics, but among us the integrity of the faith will 
 be injured, and the proper majesty and sanctity of an ecclesiasti- 
 cal baptism be diminished." Cyprian, then, by an ecclesiastical 
 baptism, meant a purification by holy water, as opposed to pollu- 
 tion by profane water, i. e. a baptism performed in the church, 
 and by the church, and not by heretics. He meant, from the ne- 
 cessity of the case, and as his own words testify, a perfect bap- 
 tism of the highest majesty and sanctity, and not a mere apology 
 and substitute for baptism, as Dr. Carson supposes. Thus falls 
 his whole theory. 
 
 Equally futile is Dr. Carson's effort to prove that " Cyprian 
 uses the word baptize in the sense of immersion, in reference to 
 the ordinance in contradistinction to perfusion." 
 
 " He argues," says Dr. C, " the validity of perfusion, from the 
 fact that the persons who were perfused in their sickness, were 
 never afterwards baptized or immersed, which they must have 
 been, had not perfusion been accounted valid, in such cases. If, 
 as he reasons, the grace usually conferred by the ordinance has 
 not been received hy perfusion, let them be baptized or immersed 
 when they recover. But as this is not the custom of the church, 
 why do they object ? No evidence can be more conclusive than 
 this. This Father uses the word in its proper sense of immerse in 
 reference, to the ordinance." 
 
 Dr. Carson has here, I charitably hope ignorantly and not wil- 
 fully, represented Cyprian as commanding what he in fact point- 
 edly prohibits. Cyprian does not say, let them be baptized when 
 they recover. He says, let them not be so deceived as to be bap- 
 tized, if they recover. He says this on the supposition that some 
 said that pardon and grace were not conferred by perfusion, and ■ 
 that to believe this and act on it, would be to act under the in- 
 fluence of a delusion. If Dr. Carson so stumbles from igno- 
 rance, in giving the sense of a simple Latin sentence, he ought to 
 have been more sparing in his charges of want of perspicacity 
 in others. 
 
§ 85. CLINIC BAPTISM. 281 
 
 Equally erroneous is Dr. Carson's assertion that Cyprian here 
 us.es the word baptize to denote immersion. 
 
 He uses baptism in contradistinction to that which is no bap- 
 tism, i. e. no purification, no absolution, but a nullity, whether 
 performed by immersion or sprinkling. The heretics immersed 
 as well as the church, but Cyprian denied that they could give 
 pardon and the grace of God. Hence their immersions were no 
 baptisms, i. e. no purifications, no absolutions, as Ambrose also 
 said. Pope Stephen called those who baptized heretics, on their 
 conversion to the church, anabaptists. In reply to this, Cyprian 
 said, " Those who come from the heretics to us are not rehaptized, 
 but baptized. For they receive nothing among those who have 
 nothing to give," i. e. they are not baptized at all. The essen- 
 tial item, then, in a valid baptism, was the fact that in it sins 
 were forgiven, and the grace of God conferred. The church, and 
 the church only, has power to do this. Heretics have no such 
 power ; they may immerse, they cannot baptize. Hence, if a 
 man is not really forgiven, he is not baptized, even if immersed. 
 
 Now we can understand the force of his reasoning as to 
 clinics. " But if any one teaches that the clinics have received 
 nothjpg, because they have been only sprinkled with saving water, 
 but that they are empty and devoid of divine grace, let them not 
 be so deceived as if tbey recover, to be baptized." 
 
 That is, let them not be so deceived as to admit that they have 
 not received forgiveness and grace as is alleged, and of course 
 have not been baptized at all, and on this ground be baptized, that 
 is, receive absolution and the grace of God, as if for the first time. 
 It is indeed implied that immersion would be resorted to as the 
 mode, in health, but this is involved in the nature of the case, and 
 not in the word baptized. Cyprian then proceeds, " But if those 
 who have been once sanctified by an ecclesiastical baptism (that is 
 by a true and valid absolution, given by the church and not by 
 heretics), cannot be baptized (since it would involve the absurdity 
 of pardoning one already pardoned), why are they troubled as it 
 regards their own faith, and the forgiveness received from God ? 
 
282 DR. carson's insinuations. § 86. 
 
 Do they fear that although they have received the grace of God 
 they have received it in less proportion ? But the spirit is not thus 
 measured out, but is poured out wholly on the believer." 
 
 The doctrine of Cyprian then was, that even an immersion out 
 of the church was no baptism, because it conferred no forgiveness 
 and no grace, but a sprinkling in the church, in cases of neces- 
 sity, was a true and valid baptism, because it conferred forgive- 
 ness, and the grace of God in full measure. Hence Zonaras 
 defines baptism, not as immersion, but as the remission of sins by 
 water and the spirit. That is, it is equivalent to xa^apjCjxo^ in the 
 sacrificial sense. Vain then are Dr. Carson's theories and 
 assertions. Nothing has been said by him which weakens at all 
 my argument in § 52, and § 57, on the subject of clinic baptism, 
 to which I refer the reader for a more full view of the case. 
 
 § 86. Br. Carson's Insinuations. 
 
 Dr. Carson insinuates that the testimony alleged by me does 
 not decide the meaning of the word at the time of the institution 
 or commencement of the rite. 
 
 "Nothing alleged by Mr. Beecher at all affects my view of the 
 testimony of the Fathers on this subject. I still equally admit 
 that testimony, in a proper view of the subject. It is their testi- 
 mony as it regards the meaning of the word at the time of the 
 institution or commencement of the rite." He then more than in- 
 sinuates that I had not discrimination enough to know the im- 
 portance of this. " Mr. Beecher's confidence is an additional 
 proof of his want of discrimination. He ought to perceive that 
 the Fathers might prove a secondary meaning, while at the same 
 time, they prove that in reference to the original institution the 
 word is used in its primary meaning." 
 
 Let now the reader judge of Dr. Carson's candor after he has 
 noted these facts. 1. The Greek Fathers, Dr. Carson being 
 judge, could not but understand the true meaning of the word 
 /5a'n'7i^w as used by John and Christ, and as recorded in the 
 
§ 86. DR. Carson's insinuations. 283 
 
 Gospels. Therefore, what they declared to be the sense is the 
 sense. 2. John says, I indeed baptize with water, but he shall 
 baptize with the Holy Ghost and with fire. 3. Basil compares 
 these words with Is. iv. 4, in the Septuagint, and declares ^aitli^u) 
 to be synonymous with the words there denoting to purify. He 
 then from these premises dra,ws out a formal definition of (3a'n'licfpM, 
 as used by Christ and John, as meaning purification. 4. Euse- 
 bius of Cesarea, in view of the same facts, gives the same testi- 
 mony. 5. Cyril of Alexandria, Origcn, Jerome, and Theodoret 
 coincide. Does not this prove beyond dispute, Dr. Carson him- 
 self being judge, what John and Christ meant by baptism at the 
 time of its institution ? Again. 6. Athanasius gives the words 
 of John the same sense. 7. I proved that John the evangelist 
 uses xa&api(fix6g as a synonyme of fSairlKjixos by an appeal to 
 Theophylact, Chrysostom, Gregory of Nyssa, and Cyril of Alex- 
 andria ; does not this prove how John the evangelist understood 
 the word ? 8. Cyril of Alexandria contrasts baptism witii the 
 ashes of a heifer, with the baptism of the Holy Ghost, spoken of 
 by John ; is it not then plain that in reading the New Testament 
 he regarded the words baptism of the Holy Ghost, as meaning 
 purification of the Holy Ghost ? 9. Theophylact regards the 
 meaning of /Sa'Trli'Jw in Luke xi. 38, as I do ; does not this prove 
 what was the usus loquendi of Luke ? But I forbear. If all of 
 Dr. Carson's conduct were not equally strange, I should wonder 
 that he dared even to insinuate that my evidence does not prove 
 the meaning of the word at the time of establishing the ordinance, 
 and much more, to assert that I had not discrimination enough to 
 know that it was necessary. Testimony more directly to this 
 point cannot be conceived, than I have given. I have thus 
 noticed all that Dr. Carson had said by way of theory, assertion, 
 or insinuation, to break the force of my argument. The intel- 
 ligent will easily see how worse than vain it is. I will next con- 
 sider his own attempt to argue from the Fathers. 
 
CHAPTER n. 
 
 DR. CARSOn's argument FROM THE FATHERS. 
 
 After so many assertions that the Fathers never use baptize 
 in the sense to purify, but always in the sense to immerse, one 
 would expect an overwhelming display of evidence from Dr. 
 Carson. We can easily conceive of evidence that would settle 
 the question. If one Greek Father had said, when the question 
 of the validity of baptism by perfusion was up, " the word 
 baptism means immersion and nothing else — the idea of immersion 
 by sprinkling is absurd," then he would have taken Dr. Carson's 
 ground. And if the Greek Fathers so believed, would they not 
 have said so ? Did not the occasion call for it ? Has Dr. 
 Carson been able to find one such passage ? Has he found a 
 single definhion of the word by a Greek Father, excluding the 
 idea of purification, and declaring immersion the only sense ? In 
 vain has Dr. Carson searched for any such thing. After long 
 and thorough search, I do not hesitate to express my full belief 
 that nothing of the kind can be found. Why should it be ? 
 Have not the Greek Fathers testified directly to the contrary ? I 
 have experienced no difficulty in finding definitions expressly to 
 my purpose. I could not ask for anything more explicit. Dr. 
 Carson, then, has produced no evidence of the kind we ought to 
 expect if his view is correct. 
 
 But this is not all. The whole of what he has produced, or 
 rather referred to, does not prove anything that I ever denied. 
 It rather confirms what I not only admit but have ofttimes clearly 
 asserted. If he had carefully read what I had stated in my second 
 part he would have seen that the greater part of his proofs, so 
 called, have no logical bearing whatever on the question at issue. 
 
§ 87. POINT AT ISSUE. 285 
 
 For the sake of greater clearness I will again state the point at 
 issue. 
 
 § 87. Point at Issue. 
 
 1. It is not whether (Sa-n'TiJcd has sometimes, or often, the sense 
 to immerse. This I admit and affirm. 
 
 2. It is not whether the Fathers do not sometimes use it in this 
 sense, both literally and figuratively. In § 10 I have quoted 
 from Chrysostom such figurative phrases as immersed in cares, 
 immersed in sins, immersed in waves of trouble ; in which, he 
 uses baptize to denote immersion. To prove this does not dis- 
 prove the sense to purify, 
 
 3. It is not whether the Fathers, except in cases of necessity, 
 immersed, and regarded immersion as significant. I have con- 
 ceded and affirmed it. But I deny that their philology can be 
 inferred from their practice. Under a command to purify, they 
 might for local reasons see fit to immerse. I have shown that 
 they did, and what the reasons were, in §§ 22 and 23, to which 
 I refer the reader. 
 
 4. It is not whether in speaking of trine immersion, and in 
 analogous cases, they do not sometimes use ^a-xli^u to denote the 
 acts of immersion which are involved in the rite of purification. 
 This I have admitted and affirmed, long before Dr. Carson ever re- 
 ferred to such cases. But from it I derived by appeal to Zonaras 
 and Balsamon, one of the strongest arguments for the truth of my 
 views, for they regard this use of (Bantri^t^ as so unusual in con- 
 nexion with the rite, that it became necessary for them to state in a 
 note that in that case it meant immerse, plainly implying that in its 
 common religious use it did not so mean. See §§ 28, 4, and 64, 
 where the principles of the case are fully considered. 
 
 5. It is not whether there may not be in the Fathers cases of 
 what on our principles of interpretation would be inconsistent use. 
 We do not allow that a word can, in the same place, have two 
 meanings. The Fathers were not tied by any such rules, and in 
 
286 POINT AT ISSUE. § 87. 
 
 their rhetorical paintings and amplifications, they sometimes try- 
 to get out of a word all the meaning they can. So Chrysostom 
 in two places assigns to the word both senses. See § 64. 
 
 6. It is not whether cases of real inconsistent use may not be 
 found in writers so many and so various. I do not admit that 
 such cases exist, but I have said, if they do, it cannot disprove my 
 argument. See §§ 21, 27, and 64. 
 
 7. The point at issue is this, do not the Fathers directly de- 
 clare that /SaTflj^w has the meaning to purify in the ordinance of 
 baptism, and does not a large class of facts clearly and irresistibly 
 sustain this assertion ? 
 
 I affirm that it is so, and have adduced proofs. Has Dr. Carson 
 fairly met them, and shown that they do not prove the point ? No. 
 Nor, as I believe, can it be done by any one. 
 
 If now it could even be proved that other Fathers do in some 
 cases interpret /3a'7r7j^co in the ordinance as meaning to immerse, 
 what would be the result ? Plainly this, that inasmuch as the 
 word /Sa-rT/^w has both senses, the great majority of the Fathers 
 interpret it in the ordinance in the sense to purify, and one or two 
 occasionally in the sense to immerse. This is the utmost point 
 that proof could reach, as facts are. 
 
 But the whole of Dr. Carson's proofs are so far from reaching 
 this, that they do not prove anything that I ever denied, or even 
 doubted. But yet Dr. Carson has so much confidence in them, 
 as to speak thus of them, " I shall submit two or three arguments 
 that I hesitate not to say will produce conviction on the mind of 
 every unprejudiced reader. I shall rather suggest them than 
 urge them." These arguments be it remembered are to prove 
 " that the Fathers understood the word as immersion in reference 
 to the institution of baptism." This he tells us " no scholar ever 
 questioned." Though it is "totally unsuitable to his work to 
 prove it at any length," yet he will submit two or three arguments 
 which he does not hesitate to say will produce conviction on the 
 mind of every unprejudiced reader. 
 
 If Dr. Carson is to produce but two or three arguments he will 
 
§ 88. ANALYSIS OF DR. CARSON's ASSERTIONS. 287 
 
 of course produce the strongest. What are they ? I have read 
 all that he has said, again and again, and I candidly profess that I 
 cannot tell. He has not stated two or three prominent points, 
 but has given a series of assertions arranged in short separate 
 paragraphs numbered from one to twelve. These are followed by 
 eighteen miscellaneous assertions as to the usus loquendi of the 
 Fathers, not numbered by him, and illustrated by no references to 
 volume or page, and arranged without system. In such a swamp 
 of assertions I have in vain asked, which are the two or three 
 arguments which he does not hesitate to say will produce convic- 
 tion on the mind of every unprejudiced reader ? 
 
 But I will apply analysis and classification to this chaotic 
 mass, and see what is the worth of its various confused elements. 
 
 § 88. Analysis and Classification of Dr. Carson's Assertions. 
 
 I begin then with the paragraphs numbered from 1 to 12. Of 
 these, four have nothing to do, not even in the remotest degree, with 
 the .question at issue. I refer to the paragraphs from 8 to 11, in- 
 clusive. Two of the rest profess to be arguments from historical 
 facts, viz. 1 and 2. Five are arguments, so called, from 
 Cyprian and Tertullian, neither of them Greek Fathers, viz. 
 from 3 to 7 inclusive. One is an argument from the Septuagint 
 and Josephus, viz. No. 12. After this follow the eighteen miscel- 
 laneous assertions as to certain Latin and Greek Fathers. These 
 I shall classify in their place. 
 
 Let us then look at the four irrelevant assertions. No. 8. *' It 
 appears to me self-evident that Christ would not appoint a rite 
 without appointing the way of its observance." What has this to 
 do with the question, what did the Fathers say as to the mean- 
 ing of (Swjrli^ul In Dr. Carson's words I would say, "Must I 
 dignify this with the appellation of reasoning ?" Is this one of the 
 two or three arguments on which Dr. Carson so confidently relies ? 
 
 No. 9. " If the word signifies to purify, and if all may purify 
 ag they please, then all the mummery of superstition is a fulfil- 
 
288 ANALYSIS OF DR. CARSON's ASSERTIONS. § 88. 
 
 ment of Christ's command in the performance of the ordinance." 
 What has this to do with settling a philological question — a ques- 
 tion of fact as to the usage of the Fathers ? 
 
 No. 10. " If the word denotes purification in general, then we 
 may purify with fire, or sulphur, or salt, or oil, or anything we 
 please, and water will not be essential. We may dispense with 
 water as well as the mode." Again I say, what has this to do 
 with a question of fact ? Suppose that the Fathers in plain terms 
 assert that (Sam'Ti^o means to purify, and so use it, what power has 
 such an argument as this to prove the contrary ? Besides the 
 argument can be retorted. If the word means immerse, then we 
 can immerse in oil, or wine, or vinegar, or milk, or dye, or mud, 
 &c. &c. The act only is enjoined — not purification — and im- 
 mersion, as an act, does not imply purification ; it may, and often 
 does pollute. 
 
 No. 11. "If the water is known to be essential from the practice 
 recorded in the Scripture, this will not serve Mr. Beecher. He 
 cannot reason on this principle. According to his principle the 
 first Christians might choose water in their purification ; but that 
 others were not bound to their purification." (I am not responsi- 
 ble for the word that which I have underscored. It is as Dr. 
 Carson left it.) Again I say, what is all this to the question at 
 issue ? Are proofs from the Fathers so scarce that the little 
 space devoted to the subject Dr. Carson must fill up with such 
 arguments as these ? As we have nothing in any of these para- 
 graphs but unproved assertions, it is enough for me to deny them 
 all-as untrue, which I do, and I also reject them as not to the 
 point if true. Surely Dr. Carson is not the man to read lessons 
 to others on discrimination, perspicacity, and a capacity for the 
 philosophy of language. 
 
 I next come to the two paragraphs Nos. 1 and 2, which profess 
 to be arguments from historical facts. The facts are, 1. That 
 the Fathers did in fact immerse except in cases of necessity. 2. 
 That the question did come up — Is the sprinkling, or perfusion of 
 clinics valid baptism. On these statements we have the infer- 
 
§ 88. ANALYSIS OF DR. CARSON's ASSERTIONS. 289 
 
 ence that neither fact could have existed if they considered any pu- 
 rification to fulfil the word. This is the amount of Nos. 1 and 2. 
 To complete this view the 17th of Dr. Carson's miscellaneous asser- 
 tions ought to be added, i. e. that Cyprian and others did not justify 
 perfusion in the case of Novatian, on the ground of the meaning of 
 the word, but on other grounds. Had the word signified purification 
 without respect to mode, would they not have appealed to the mean- 
 ing of the word ? This, he thinks, is proof clear as demonstration that 
 they understood the word as signifying immersion. To the first 
 two of these statements and inferences I have already given a deci- 
 sive answer ia my second Part, §§ 22, 23. There I have shown 
 that the early prevalence of immersion can be abundantly ex- 
 plained by these causes. 1. Oriental usages, and the habits of 
 warmer regions. 2. A false interpretation of Rom. vi. 2, 3, and 
 Col. ii. 1, 2 ; and 3. A very early habit of ascribing magical 
 virtue to external forms. These causes I showed to be amply 
 sufficient in power and extent to account for the prevalence of 
 immersion under a command to purify. Of course no presump- 
 tion exists against the sense I claim. In a generation attaching 
 magical power to forms, and swayed by the authority of prevail- 
 ing present usage, the proposal to sprinkle or perfuse sick persons, 
 would of course raise the inquiry, can real absolution and the 
 grace of God be obtained in a way of applying holy water, which 
 is by no means so thorough as immersion ? The materializing 
 and formal habits of the age would of course raise this inquiry. 
 And I have shown that this was the inquiry. See § 52. The 
 argument from not appealing to the meaning of the word, can be 
 retorted with fatal power. If the command was understood to be 
 to immerse, why did no man use the universal and all-compre- 
 hending argument of modern Baptists ? Why did no man say 
 neither sprinkling nor perfusion is baptism ? Nothing but immer- 
 sion is baptism. You cannot immerse by sprinkling. To 
 sprinkle or perfuse does not fulfil the command in any sense. 
 Can you find a modern Baptist book of which this argument is 
 not the soul ? How is it, then, that there is not a lisp of it in a 
 
 18 
 
-v90 ANALYSIS OF DR. CAKSON's ASSERTIONS. § 88. 
 
 solitary Father of any age ? The reason why Cyprian and 
 others did not appeal to the word purify in defence, was, that to 
 those who objected to sprinkling on the ground that immersion 
 was a more thorough purification, and alone gave full grace and 
 pardon, it would be no argument to say that the command was to 
 purify. The difficulty to be met was, how a purification so 
 limited and deficient in thoroughness could give full remission 
 and grace. That this was the difficulty Cyprian's letter shows. 
 He proves by an appeal to Ezek. xxxvi. 25, and Num. xix. 13, 
 that divinely ordained compendious modes like these used in the 
 Old Testament were sufficiently thorough. That the mind was not 
 purified like the body, but could be thoroughly purified even if it 
 was not immersed in a bath or pool ; and that the grace of 
 God is not given in divided measures according to the amount 
 of external washing, but is given wholly to all who believe. 
 
 That Cyprian and those who thought with him, did not appeal 
 to the meaning of the word, is, therefore, no argument against me. 
 That his opponents did not appeal to it, that no opposer of clinic 
 baptism ever appealed to it, throws the '' demonstration" against 
 Dr. Carson with a force not to be resisted. 
 
 In Nos. 3, 5, and 6, he tells us that Cyprian considered 
 perfusion as not baptism properly, but a valid substitute for it, 
 and on this ground calls it ecclesiasfical baptism, as opposed to 
 real baptism ; and that he uses baptize in the sense immerse, as 
 opposed to perfusion. Out of this, his first theory of solution 
 springs. The falsehood of these assertions, and the ignorance 
 which they involve of the usus loquendi of Cyprian and the age, 1 
 have so fully exposed in § 85, that I need add nothing more. 
 
 In No. 4, he tells us that Cyprian calls perfusion an abridgment 
 or compend of the ordinance. What then ? Is sprinkling a 
 compendious mode of immersion ? How can that which anni- 
 hilates immersion, so that not even a shadow of it remains, be 
 called a compend of it ? Immersion is indeed the most full and 
 thorough mode of purification, and sprinkling is another mode of 
 purification much more compendious, but it is not, and cannot be, 
 
§ 89. ANALYSIS OF DR. CARSOn's ASSERTIONS. 291 
 
 a compendious mode of immersion. Dr. Carson's assertion, 
 therefore, is a decisive argument against himself. 
 
 In No. 7, he refers to TertuUian's mode of speaking on trine 
 immersion. Here I admit that tingo, like tSairrii^oj, if used with 
 numerals in reference to trine immersion, has the sense immerse. 
 This usage I had stated and explained long before Dr. Carson 
 referred to it ; and shown from Zonaras and Balsamon that it was 
 such a deviation from common use, as to need a note to explain 
 it. The practice of trine immersion was a human invention, and 
 in trying to illustrate or prove it from the word of God, they fell 
 into an unusual and improper use of language, as we might 
 expect. This Zonaras and Balsamon explained by notes ; but 
 the most, to avoid it, resorted to xaradxjdig and ava^utfi? as uni vocal 
 terms and not liable to breed confusion.' See § 28, No. 4, and § 64. 
 
 In No. 12, in order to prove the usage of the Fathers, he tells 
 us that Josephus and the Septuagint do not use (Saitrl^u^ to denote 
 purification in innumerable cases where they speak of rites of 
 purification. What has this to do with the Fathers ? Was 
 Josephus a Christian Father ? Were the authors of the Septua- 
 gint Christian Fathers ? Again, what has it to do with the argu- 
 ment if these were Christian Fathers ? It is mere negative 
 testimony. They might use xa^aPi'^w, or ^vm'ru, or wrro^^jirru, or 
 tf/x^^^^w, or a'jro(fixrj-)(_o}, or a^/vi^w, or irXCvu, or sxttXi^vw, and omit 
 ^a'TT-ri^w, and yet it would be mere negative testimony. One 
 .single assertion of Basil that /^a-TTTi^w means to purify, has more 
 weight than ten thousand such omissions. Yet Dr. Carson relies 
 on such evidence as perfect demonstration. 
 
 § 89. Second Class of Assertions. 
 
 Dr. Carson's numbered paragraphs have all been considered. 
 Which of these contains the two or three arguments sufficient to 
 convince every unprejudiced reader, I will not attempt to say. I 
 will only say, after so much boasting and insult, is this all ? 
 
 But perhaps his two or three arguments may be picked out of 
 
292 ASSERTIONS AS TO JUSTIN MARTYR. § 90. 
 
 his eighteen unnumbered miscellaneous assertions as to the 
 Fathers, which follow his numbered paragraphs. I will then 
 analyse and classify these. 
 
 CLASSIFICATION OF MISCELLANEOUS ASSERTIONS AS TO THE FATHERS. 
 
 It is proper here to repeat that Dr. Carson has not referred to 
 the page of one passage to confirm any of his assertions. 
 
 It is a provoking mode of controversy to make assertions con- 
 cerning sentences and words scattered through fifteen or twenty 
 folio volumes of Greek and Latin, without a reference to volume, 
 page, or treatise, and occasionally to say in triumph, — What can 
 be more decisive ? This is perfect demonstration ! Notwithstanding 
 this skulking and unfair method of fighting, I have succeeded in 
 tracking Dr. Carson through all his lurking-places, and shall 
 proceed to show that his assertions are false, or else that the facts 
 alleged are not at all decisive of the question in debate. But 
 perhaps I ought to say in excuse of Dr. Carson, that he probably 
 did not know where many of the passages to which he refers were 
 to be found. He does, indeed, give evidence of having read 
 Justin Martyr ; but his quotations from Origen, Clemens Alex- 
 andrinus, and Gregory Thaumaturgus, seem to have been taken at 
 second-hand from some friend of Dr. Gale's, since they are the 
 same which Dr. Wall long ago replied to, as coming from some 
 Dutch friend of Dr. Gale. The references to Tertullian an(t 
 Chrysostom seem also to be second-hand references. Justin 
 Martyr and Cyprian appear to have been somewhat studied by 
 Dr. Carson, but how superficially, may be inferred from what I 
 have already said on his reasoning from them, and still more, from 
 what remains to be said. 
 
 § 90. Assertions as to Justin Martyr. 
 
 Many of Dr. Carson's assertions relate to Justin Martyr. His 
 testimony is of great importance. He lived in Palestine, and 
 wrote about fifty years after the death of the Apostle John. He 
 
§ 90. ASSERTIONS AS TO JUSTIN MARTYR. 293 
 
 professes to give in his apology a full account of baptism, and in 
 his dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, he incidentally speaks of it. 
 From this dialogue I made a quotation to prove that the word 
 meant to purify. To this, Dr. Carson, as usual, makes no reply. 
 Instead of this, he accumulates assertions. These relate — 
 
 1. To Justin's description of baptism in his apology. 
 
 2. To that part of the dialogue with Trypho, the Jew, from 
 which I made my quotation. 
 
 3. To a passage relative to raising the head of the axe, by 
 Elisha, by throwing in a piece of wood. 
 
 4. To an alleged neglect of Justin, to denote purification by 
 any word that signifies baptism. 
 
 With regard to Justin's description of baptism, his first asser- 
 tion is, that " he describes the performance of the rite as an immer- 
 sion." This is not so. He describes it as a washing. His 
 name of it as a washing is derived from the command. Is. i. 16. 
 " Wash you, make you clean." This he regards as a command 
 to baptize, or a prediction of baptism, as I shall more fully show in 
 considering his dialogue with Trypiio, the Jew. Moreover, the 
 word lSairri^(A} does not occur in the whole description, nor any 
 word that means to immerse. 
 
 Dr. Carson once said that " I was the dupe of my own sophistry, 
 and that a sophistry childishly weak," because to decide the 
 meaning of /SacrTi'^w, I introduced, as a part of a cumulative 
 argument, some passages that did not contain the word. Yet 
 here he is doing the same thing, for, as I have said, this whole 
 passage does not contain the word, orany of its derivatives. And 
 yet the entire .omission of this word, and of the idea to immerse, 
 from a professed description of baptism, is a fair argument on my 
 side, for the idea of immersion, if as essential as Dr. C. says, would 
 not be omitted, but there is nothing in the passage from Avhich 
 Dr. Carson can draw the sliHitest logical inference in fiivor of 
 his views. 
 
 His second assertion is, that Justin regarded immersion as em- 
 blematical, and therefore essential to the rite in its proper sense ; 
 this he infers from the fact that Justin savs that in this rite thev 
 
294 ASSERTIONS AS TO JUSTIN MARTYR. § 90. 
 
 are born again. Here the reference is, he affirms, " to their being 
 in the water, and coming out of the water." This is not cor- 
 rect. Justin does not give this explanation. They are said to be 
 born again, in this rite, he tells us, because in it, by intelligence 
 and choice they become the children of God — whereas the first 
 birth was a matter of necessity, and when it took place, they 
 were in utter ignorance, and after it, they grew up in sinful ways. 
 What right had Dr. Carson to crowd his crude notions upon Jus- 
 tin, contrary to his own clear explanation ? 
 
 His third assertion is, that Justin declares that " in the water 
 they have remission of sins. This shows that to be in the water 
 and to come out of it is the true meaning of the rite." This is a 
 mere begging of the question. The language of Justin may be 
 just as well translated hy water, and so it is translated by Wall. 
 Moreover, this agrees with the modes of speaking already de- 
 veloped, in which persons are said to be baptized by water, and 
 not in it. Baptism by fire, by water, by repentance, by tears, by 
 martyrdom, are of common occurrence, and denote purification 
 or remission of sins by these means. Hence, if, as we ought, we 
 translate the passage, ly water they have remission of sins. Dr. 
 Carson's argument vanishes into smoke. 
 
 This completes the refutation of Dr. Carson's argument from 
 Justin's description of baptism. I am the more particular thus to 
 refute Dr. Carson's assertions, because I wish to call attention to 
 the fact that Justin, the earliest writer who has professedly de- 
 scribed baptism, fixes the mind solely on purification, as its great 
 idea, and says nothing of burial with Christ, or resurrection with 
 him. This false application of Rom. vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12, can- 
 not be found in him. 
 
 In a spurious work ascribed to him, entitled Questions to the 
 Orthodox, composed in a later age, that false interpretation ap- 
 pears. But in the genuine works of Justin nowhere. 
 
 So much I liave said for the truth's sake — but now I add, that 
 even if Justin had described tlie rite as in fact performed by im- 
 mersion, and regarded the mode as significant, still it would not 
 
§ 90. ASSERTIONS AS TO JUSTIN MARTYR. 295 
 
 touch the question of philology, for as I have often said, under a 
 command to purify, they might, for various reasons, purify by im- 
 mersion, just as in later ages they clearly did. All the probabili- 
 ty of immersion in this description is created by Justin's asser- 
 tion that they take those who are to be baptized to a place where 
 there is water. But of this Dr. Carson here says nothing, and it 
 is of no force in settling the meaning of (Saitri^o), even if it ren- 
 ders it probable that immersion was practised. 
 
 Let us pass to the dialogue with Trypho, the Jew. Dr. Car- 
 son's assertions here are quite remarkable. He grazes on the 
 passage quoted by me, in which Justin uses /Sa-Trrji^w to denote 
 purify — and which no man can refute ; he quotes a part of it, he 
 must have had it in full view, he had read my argument from it, 
 and yet he passes it by — nor is this all ; in the very teeth of it he 
 dares to make the assertion that " when Justin speaks of purifica- 
 tion, he never employs any word that signifies baptism," and then 
 asks, " If the word had this signification in his time, why did he 
 not sometimes use it in that sense ?" 
 
 I now ask the attention of all candid men to the impregnable 
 strength of the passage which he thus suppresses, MMiile profess- 
 ing to seek the truth, and to the futility of all that he alleges 
 from the context in support of his own theory. 
 
 Justin says, rebuking the Jews for their confidence in external 
 observances, ujxsr^ s-tt/ tyj (fapxi [liya (ppovsTrs, " ye glory in the flesh.'"' 
 He declares that they needed a second circumcision, and rebukes 
 their sabbatizing and eating of unleavened bread, while full of 
 sin ; with such things God is not pleased. He then enjoins re- 
 pentance and a new life. If any has stolen, let him cease ; if 
 any is an adulterer, let him repent ; if any man has impure hands. 
 " let him wash, and he is clean." 
 
 He thus comes to the passage, "Wash you, make you clean," in 
 Isaiah i. 16, so remarkable for the frequent references made to it 
 by the Fathers as a prediction or command of baptism. But as 
 he is rebuking confidence in external rites, he proceeds to declare 
 that the washing here commanded is no external washing. 
 
296 ASSERTIONS AS TO JUSTIN MARTYR. ^ 90. 
 
 " Isaiah did not send you to the hath, there to wash away your 
 murder and your other sins, which not all the water of the sea 
 can expiate (xa&a.^lCai'), hut as the case required, he referred even 
 of old, to that saving washing which took place in those who re- 
 pent and are purified (xa^a^i^o^xivoig), not by the blood of goats 
 and of sheep, nor by the ashes of a heifer, nor by offerings of the 
 finest flour, but by faith, through (Sia) the blood of Christ, and 
 his death, who died for this end, as Isaiah has declared, thus 
 speaking." He then quotes the whole passage from the 10th 
 verse of the 52d of Is. in the Septuagint, to the 6th of the 54th, 
 including all of the 53d, in which is that striking prophetic ac- 
 count of the atoning death of Christ, and in which he is spoken 
 of in the Hebrew, as justifying many by his knowledge, and in 
 the Septuagint as forming or creating them by knowledge, justi- 
 fying the righteous, and taking away sins. 
 
 He then proceeds, " Therefore, by the washing of repentance, 
 and of the knowledge of God, which was provided for the sins of 
 the people of God, as Isaiah proclaims, we have believed, and 
 know that this is that haytism, i. e. purification, which he fore- 
 told, which alone can purify those who repent. 
 
 Here he is, avowedly describing an inward purification by re- 
 pentance and faith, as opposed to any washing in a bath, or any 
 external rite. This spiritual purification he proceeds to contrast 
 with their external rites, using the beautiful figure of Jeremiah, 
 "My people have forsaken mp, the fountain of living waters, and 
 have hewed out to themselves cisterns, broken cisterns, that can 
 hold no water." This, says he, is the living water, but the cis- 
 terns which ye have hewn out for yourselves are broken, and can 
 profit you nothing. 
 
 Then follows the passage which I have quoted, and called un- 
 answerable. 
 
 t/ ^ap o'cpsXoj ixsivou tou /^a-jr^i'tfixaroj, 6 rv^v Capxa ^au /xo'vov to 
 tfwjxa (Dcn5^()\si ; Qa<KTl<i^y]TZ tyiV •>]^up(;7iv a-Tro 6pyr,g xal d'rrh -rXsov- 
 s^iag, dfto cp&ovov, dirh y.t<fovg, xai iSov to dCJ^a xoJapov stfTiv. 
 
 " What is the use of that purification which purifies the flesh 
 
§ 90. ASSERTIONS AS TO JUSTIN MARTYR. 297 
 
 and the body alone ? Be purified as to your soul, from anger 
 and from covetousness, from envy and from hatred, and lo ! your 
 body is pure." 
 
 Let it now be well noted, that the great scope of the passage is 
 to expose a reliance on any external forms, as a means of re- 
 moving sin, and to inculcate the necessity of inward purification, 
 by repentance, and faith. All external forms of purification, by a 
 striking metaphor, he calls broken cisterns, which can profit 
 nothing. He then exposes the vanity of such external purifica- 
 tion, as purifying the flesh and the body alone. He then, by 
 ^wrrri^u}, enjoins the inward purification. After ^aifri^u, and 
 before that from which the mind is to be purified, he uses aito, be 
 purified from anger, &c. He then, by way of antithesis, declares 
 the effect of this inward purification on the body, lo, your body is 
 pure. The laws of antithesis require the sense of ^aTrn'^w to 
 correspond to the sense of xa^apo'v. Be purified as to your mind, 
 and your body is pure. If the verb means to immerse, it ought 
 to read, be immersed as to your mind, and lo, your body is im- 
 mersed. In § 50, I clearly unfolded the argument from this pas- 
 sage, and declared it unanswerable, and it is so. What then 
 does Dr. Carson do? As I have said, he makes no effort to an- 
 swer it, but in the full blaze of its light, he gropes around with 
 closed eyes, to feel out something to be said in behalf of immer- 
 sion. 
 
 What docs he say ? 1. " He (Justin) speaks of baptism as 
 cleansing the flesh and the body only ; this shows that the water 
 was applied to the body in general." If it were so, what then ? 
 Cannot water be applied to the body in general, in other 
 modes besides immersion ? Was it not applied to the body in 
 general, in clinic perfusion ? But it does not imply that water 
 was applied to the body in general. It docs not imply water at 
 all. Justin had just contrasted purification, not by water, but by 
 the blood of bulls and goats, and the ashes of a heifer, with puri- 
 fication by repentance and faith. So Cyril of Alexandria con- 
 trasted baptism by the ashes of a heifer, with the baptism of the 
 
 18* 
 
298 ASSERTIOI>fS AS TO JUSTIN MARTYR. § 90. 
 
 Holy Ghost. One uses xadapl^u, the other ^aitri^c^, with re- 
 ference to purification by sprinkling. Is it not proper to say of 
 sprinklings by blood and by ashes, that they cleanse the flesh and 
 the body alone ? and does this imply an immersion of the body 
 in blood and ashes ? To illustrate Is. i. 16, the same Cyril too, 
 refers to the sprinklings of the old law. Plainly, then, Justin 
 had no thought of immersion in his mind. He thought only of 
 external purification by any rites affecting merely tlie flesh, the 
 body — as contrasted with an inward purification from sin. 
 
 But again. Dr. Carson says, " He speaks of it also as referring 
 to cisterns, or pits, as trenches that are dug. It must then have 
 been an immersion." This is not correct. The Hebrew is, ye 
 have hewn out cisterns. The Greek admits, and therefore de- 
 mands, the same rendering. Justin therefore refers to hewn out 
 cisterns, that are broken, and can hold no loater. Does this imply 
 immersion 1 It is a figure to denote the unprofitableness of exter- 
 nal rites to satisfy the spiritual wants of the mind. True inward 
 purification does this. Therefore it is the living water. Exter- 
 nal purifications cannot — therefore they are broken cisterns, that 
 can hold no water. Upon such a straw as this Dr. Carson seizes, 
 to keep himself from drowning. In the first place, the real bap- 
 tism, of which Justin is speaking, is not performed in water at all, 
 and has no reference to cisterns, pits, or ditches. In the second 
 place, the metaphor of broken cisterns is applied as much to ex- 
 ternal purifications by blood and ashes, as to those by water, and 
 implies neither sprinkling, nor immersion, nor any other mode, but 
 merely unprofitableness. 
 
 In view, then, of the passage totally omitted by Dr. Carson, 
 and shining in the splendor of irrefutable truth, how pitiful do 
 such subterfuges appear, and how daring Dr. Carson's assertion 
 that Justin never employs any word that signifies baptism, when 
 he speaks of purification. To convey the idea of purification, 
 he uses (Sairri^u itself; and does not this signify baptism ? 
 
 Dr. Carson once said, " What is the hardihood of men who 
 can presume to allege the Fathers on the other side ?" 
 
§ 91. DR. CARSON 'S DEMONSTRATION. 299 
 
 It certainly required no common hardihood in Dr. Carson, thus 
 tosuppress, and then to contradict, the express testimony of Justin. 
 
 Dr. Carson next argues from the fact that Justin calls circum- 
 cision a baptism. This fact I have fully considered, anjJ retorted 
 as an argument against Dr. Carson. He then affirms — "Justin 
 speaks, also, of certain washings prescribed by Moses, as bein^ 
 baptisms. Now, purification in general would not suit this, for 
 every purification would not fulfil the injunction.'^ What then? 
 Does this prove that the Mosaic washings in question are not puri- 
 fications ? Certainly not, for they are. Why, then, may they not be 
 called by their right generic name ? What though purifying by 
 blood or ashes will not fulfil a command to wash in water ? Docs 
 washing in water therefore cease to be a purification, and is it 
 wrong to call all washings in water purifications? I would say, in Dr. 
 Carson's words, " such reasoning is to me a perfect astonishment." 
 
 § 91. Dr. Carson'' s De?nons{ ration. 
 
 But one passage now ren)ains, a figure taken from the sinking 
 of the axe, and in that, /Sa'TTTi'^w clearly and undeniably means to 
 immerse. At this Dr. Carson greatly glories. He says — " It 
 puts Justin's testimony on this subject beyond controversy." So 
 it does, but that testimony is directly against Dr. Carson, and for 
 me. Let us examine it. The head of the axe sank in thr 
 water. 
 
 By a striking figure taken from it, Justin speaks of sinners as 
 immersed in the heaviest sins — (Ss^wn'-iffp.ivovs rms (Sa^vraraic: 
 oniaprlffAs. 
 
 This is but anew proof of the truth of my assertion in § 10, 
 that the sense to immerse is not transferred to the mind to indi- 
 cate the effects of the agency of the Holy Spirit, that is, purifi- 
 cation, but where oppressive, crushing, painful, or injurious in- 
 fluences are denoted, it is so transferred. I illustrated it by pas- 
 sages from Chrysostom — fSeQa'rcrid^ivoi (i. c. immersed) in cares, — 
 in the heaviest sins, — in many waves of troubles, &c. At the 
 
300 DR. CARSON^S DEMONSTRATION. § 9l. 
 
 close of § 28, No. 16, I repeated the same ideas. I there say of 
 the figurative use of the idea to immerse, common usage connects it 
 with adjuncts denoting calamity and degradation, and never puri- 
 ty. Thus we say immersed in luxury, ease, sins, pollution, indo- 
 lence, sloth, cares, anxieties, but not immersed in purity, holiness, 
 fortitude, self-denial, temperance, industry. Sinking and down- 
 ward motion are associated with moral degradation — not with 
 moral elevation. So in this case, Dr. Carson, with great sim- 
 plicity, asks, " Are we purified by sin ?" No, certainly, we are 
 immersed in it. Dr. Carson also furnishes me another proof from 
 Origen, another from Gregory Thaumaturgus, and still another 
 from Clemens Alexandrinus, of the same thing. Origen, he tells 
 us, speaks of persons totally given up to sin, as being entirely im- 
 mersed, or sunk down under wickedness. Gregory compares 
 men involved in calamities, to men sinking in water, and to he 
 drawn out. So Clement speaks of men as baptized by drunkenness 
 into sleep. He says, " All languages must recognise this figure." 
 Certainly, it is an immersion into a drunken sleep, one of the most 
 degrading and polluting things conceivable. Thus all their tes- 
 timony is for me. I am under great obligations to Dr. Carson. 
 These are all second hand quotations. Dr. Carson quotes 
 noth ng of his own knowledge from Origen, Gregory, or 
 Clement. 
 
 But let us return to the sinners immersed in sin, like the head 
 of the axe, spoken of by Justin. Certainly Dr. Carson does not 
 regardthis immersion in sin, as the rite of Christian baptism, nor 
 is it the baptism of the Holy Ghost. It is a state of degradation 
 and pollution, out of which they must be elevated and lifted up, 
 . And how is this to be done ? Is it not by reversing the immer- 
 sion, and thus lifting the sinner up to the regions of holiness? 
 And what does this ? Justin says baptism. Baptism, then, 
 does not immerse, it delivers from immersion. So Justin express- 
 ly says, that Christ delivered them from this immersion in sin, by 
 being crucified for them upon the tree, and by purifying Ihem by 
 water (5i' uJaToj a^v/cTaj). This use of purification, by water, to 
 
^ 91. DR. CARSON^S DEMONSTRATION, 301 
 
 reverse immersion in sin, deserves particular notice. Justin by 
 it explicitly tells us that as the axe immersed in the water, 
 was raised by wood, so the sinner immersed in sin, is raised by 
 purification, that is, baptism. 
 
 The same is thus stated by Ambrose. " Elisha called on the 
 name of the Lord, and the head of the axe, which had been im- 
 mersed, CAME UP. Behold another kind of baptism. Where- 
 fore ? Because every man before his purification (ante baptis- 
 mum), is weighed down and immersed like the iron. When he 
 has been purified (ubi baptizatus fuerit), he is not like iron, but 
 like some lighter species of fruitful wood, he 7'iscs.'' Here, be- 
 yond all doubt, Ambrose calls the rising up of the axe a kind of 
 baptism, because it represents the rising up of a purified sinner. 
 But immersion represents, not his baptism, but his state before 
 his baptism — his degradation in sin. 
 
 I can heartily re-echo Dr. Carson's own words, " What can be 
 more decisive than this?" But decisive of what ? That the 
 idea of immersion is used to denote, not baptism, but degradation 
 in sin, and the idea purification, i. e. baptism, to denote elevation 
 out of it. /Sa-TTriJw, then, when applied to the rite or to the ac- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit, must mean to purify. Dr. Carson's ap- 
 peal to tiie Fathers Origen, Gregory, and Clemens Alexandrinus, 
 I have thus considered — they testify for me. If anything in Dr. 
 Carson could surprise me, it would be that he should produce 
 such passages, as if they proved anything in his favor, or anything 
 that T ever denied. The question is not, does the word /Sa-TrTi'^w 
 ever mean immersion. No one denies it. All affirm it. I had 
 alread)'- proved it abundantly by similar passages. If any wish, 
 I will bring more. Thus Cyril of Alexandria says, that " the 
 earth was immersed (/SsSa-TrTKrfji-svT]) in the darkness of ignorance, 
 when Christ died." But in no cases like these is the word 
 used with any reference to the rite of baptism. They merely 
 contain figures taken from the act of immersion, to denote a con- 
 dition of calamity, distress, or degradation. The original of the 
 passage from Gregory Thaumaturgus may be found in Wall, iii. 
 
302 ARGUMENT FROM TERTULLIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM. § 92. 
 
 112. Dr. Carson does not quote it, nor does he translate it so as to 
 give any correct idea of the passage. He says, " Gregory 
 Thaumaturgus speaks of drawing baptized persons up, as fish 
 are drawn out of water by a line." Gregory says nothing about 
 drawing fish up out of water, and he has no reference, as might 
 be supposed from Dr. Carson's translation, to the rite of baptism. 
 He is speaking of a person as '-stretching out his hand to save 
 othei's, as if he were drawing out, with a rope, men immersed," i. 
 e. in the water (aXXoij o^sj/wv yfi^o. ^lacfwtfoiro wtf'Trs^ ^aTrn^o^.svous 
 dviix'S)ixsvos). These persons are no more spoken of as baptized in 
 the religious sense, than men immersed in sin or ignorance are 
 spoken of as baptized in that sense. 
 
 § 92. Argument from Tertullian and Chrysostom. 
 
 Dr. Carson next asserts " that Tertullian understood immersion 
 to be a part of the nature of the rite, is evident from his saying 
 'that in baptism we die through a likeness;' there is no death in 
 purification, except it be performed by immersion." p. 491. But 
 this throws no light on the meaning of the word, but only proves 
 that the rite of purification was at the time of Tertullian ad- 
 ministered by immersion. This being the case, he states truly 
 the matter of fact, as things then were, " that in purification, they 
 died emblematically." 
 
 But I have clearly shown that in other cases he applies the 
 word baptism to all kinds of purification, including sprinkling. 
 This proves decisively that he understood the word baptism to 
 mean, not immersion, but purification. 
 
 I pass to Chrysostom. Dr. Carson says, Chrysostom most de- 
 finitively shows that he attached this meaning to the word, by 
 coupling it with the word sink, and making the action designated 
 by both, an emblem of burial and resurrection. " To he baptized, 
 and to sink down," says he, " then to rise, is a symbol of the going 
 down into the grave, and of coming up from it. Here he not 
 only couples baptizing with sinking down, but makes both words 
 
§ 92. ARGUMENT FROM TERTULLIAN AND CHRYSOSTOM. 303 
 
 as to the ordinance of baptism, designate an idea which is an em- 
 blem of going down into the grave. He not only uses the word 
 in the sense of immersion, but in that sense he applies it to the 
 ordinance of baptism. No evidence can be more decisive than 
 this." 
 
 Dr. Carson then seems to think that the greatest strength of 
 his argument lies here. Yet I had by anticipation answered this, 
 and all similar arguments, long ago. In § 27 and in § 28, No. 4, 1 
 clearly stated that the word ^airrii^u) is sometimes used with re- 
 ference to the rite of baptism, in the sense to immerse, as well as 
 in the sense to purify. But I stated that these two senses are ap- 
 plied to the rite in different ways, and for different ends. Taken 
 in the sense to purify, it denotes the real import of the rite as a 
 whole, and the thing enjoined, and is used in the sacrificial and 
 religious sense. Taken in the sense to immerse, it fixes the mind 
 on a physical act, whicli, in the rite, is but one jjart of a complex 
 whole. The usage in trine immersion illustrates this. The 
 phrase tp»« jSaTrTicr/xara. fAj% fAu/jcTEw^, denotes not three perfor- 
 mances of the rite of purification, but three acts of immersion, 
 included as a part of one performance of the rite. 
 
 But this use of /So.'^rTi Jw to denote a particular act in baptism, is 
 an exception to the general rule. This the notes of Zonaras and 
 Balsamon clearly prove, for they state that in such cases, the word 
 denotes immerse, w^hich is a perfect demonstration that this is not 
 its common meaning, when applied to the rite. In the passage 
 now under consideration, and which Dr. C. regards as his main 
 reliance, Chrysostom is explaining merely the import o^ the acts 
 of immersion and emersion, as parts of the rite of purification, and 
 his language is to be explained on the same principles as in the 
 case of trine immersion. 
 
 This use of /^a-Trr/^w, with reference to baptism, in two senses, 
 need not surprise any one. On p. 442, Dr. Carson tells us that 
 *' Bapto, in the art of dyeing, may be used in the same page for 
 dyeing and for dipping.'^ Is it at all strange then, that for different 
 purposes, baptizo should be used on the same page, now for purifi- 
 
304 TRINE IMMERSION. § 93. 
 
 cation, then for immersion ? At one time, with reference to the 
 rite of purifying, as a whole ; at another, with reference to an act 
 involved in it ? 
 
 But the pains taken to introduce and use xaratJutfi^ in such 
 cases, instead of f2kitTi(i[}.a, for the sake of avoiding ambiguity, as 
 we'll as the necessity of resorting to notes to explain yGa-TrTKff^.a, 
 when used in the sense immersion, establish the truth of my views 
 on this subject beyond all question. 
 
 Chrysostom then proves nothing against me — nothing that I ever 
 denied. He does not prove that fSci'jt'rKf^a, as the name of the 
 rite, viewed as a whole, does not mean purification. He does not 
 prove that /SaTrrj^w has not the sense to purify in other cases. 
 He merely uses ir in this case, to denote the physical act of im- 
 mersion, as a part of the complex rite, to which was applied, as a 
 whole, the name purification. And the fact that in Rom. vi. 
 Chrysostom saw asserted an emblem of burial and resurrection, 
 in the rite of baptism, does not prove at all that the name of the 
 rite denotes immersion, and not purification. It proves that Chry- 
 sostom believed that under a command to purify, immersion was 
 the proper mode, and that it was significant of death, burial, and 
 resurrection. That he believed all this, I have never denied, or 
 even called in question. But that his view of Rom. vi. was in- 
 correct, 1 have both asserted and proved. 
 
 § 93. Trine Immersion. 
 
 Dr. Carson next proceeds to remark on the subject of trine im- 
 mersion. Here he meets the fact that three immersions are 
 called one Baptism. '^ My philosophy,'^ says he, "can account 
 for this." 
 
 This implies that mine cannot. But this is merely bold vaunt- 
 ing, for want of argument. My philosophy gives by far the best 
 account of it. Which is most likely, that the Fathers said, three 
 immersions of one purification, or three immersions of one immer- 
 sion ? He says that in such a case, the words one baptism, are 
 
§ 94. APPEAL TO JEROME. 305 
 
 used with reference to the rite in its appropriated sense. They 
 are' indeed used for the performance of the act of purification 
 taken as a whole, as is plain from the L. Apostolical Canon, 
 where jxyigrfj^ is used in place of f3a'rrri(f^a, for the purpose of 
 avoiding the verbal ambiguity involved in saying three baptisms 
 of one baptism ; hence they say three immersions of one initia- 
 tion. But the most general mode of avoiding this verbal ambi- 
 guity proves the truth of my 'view. It was to introduce the 
 univocal word, xarat^utfic:, to denote immersion, and to retain 
 /So.'TT-ja'fjLa to denote the initiation, that is, the purification taken as 
 a whole. So Theophylact says, " as purification (/Sa-jrTJd'fxa) by 
 immersion (^xaTa6v^su)g) shows forth death, so by emersion 
 (ava(Jj(j'£wc:) it shows forth resurrection." And Photius, using the 
 same words to denote immersions and emersions, says " the three 
 immersions and emersions of purification (<rou jSccifT'Kf^a-ros) sym- 
 bolize death and resurrection." This resort to an univocal word 
 to denote immersion, clearly indicates a purpose to leave to 
 /^(X'7frj(j'|jLa the undisputed work of denoting purification as its 
 proper and usual sense. 
 
 § 94. Appeal to Jerome. 
 
 Last of all Dr. Carson appeals to the learned Jerome. " Jerome," 
 he says, " translated the word in the commission by intingo, to 
 dip into, which shows that in his time the Greek word was under- 
 stood to signify immersion." 
 
 How to explain such an assertion I know not. Dr. Carson was 
 certainly able to read the Latin of Jerome's translation. Let any 
 one who can read Latin turn to Jerome's version, and he will find 
 these words, as a translation of the commission. " Euntes ergo 
 docete omnes gentes, bapilzantes eos in nomine Patris, et Filii, et 
 spiritus sancti." Was Dr. Carson then entirely ignorant of the 
 facts in the case ? No. He must have known that intingunt 
 was not in the translation, for in this very volume he speaks of it 
 as a part of Jerome's ex]posUion, p. 292, and it is in fact a part of 
 
306 APPEAL TO JEROME. § 94. 
 
 a comment of some lensrth on the commission. After translatinoj 
 the commission as above stated, Jerome proceeds to explain what 
 was, in his view, the practice under the commission. " First, they 
 teach all nations, then they immerse those who are taught, in 
 water." He then states the reasons of this mode of proceeding. 
 This gives us simply Jerome's view of the practice of the apostles, 
 and not at all a translation of the word baptize. According to him, 
 under a command to purify, they did in fact immerse. Dr. 
 Carson's assertion that Jerome translates the word in the com- 
 mission by intingo, I leave for his friends to explain. Had he not 
 " discrimination" enough to distinguish translation from comment ? 
 Perhaps he spoke from a general impression, and did not take 
 pains to consult the translation at all. Perhaps he had forgotten 
 what he once knew about it. However this may be, I will apply 
 to him his own words, " This is a strange observation for a man 
 of letters." 
 
 I have now finished Dr. Carson's argument from the Fathers. 
 Let all candid and competent judges decide whether it is not, as I 
 affirm, entirely aside from the point at issue, and totally devoid of 
 power to prove Dr. Carson's position, or to overthrow mine. But 
 since Dr. Carson has brought forward Jerome as a witness, I will 
 allow him to testify to his real opinion, before leaving the stand. 
 
 _ He translates Ezek. xxxvi. 25, thus, " I will pour out (or 
 sprinkle) upon you clean water." In his comment he represents 
 God as saying concerning the Jews, " for my name sake I spared, 
 sanctified, and restored them, so that upon tliose who believe and 
 are converted from error, I might pour out the clean water of 
 saving baptism (baptismi salutaris) and cleanse them from all 
 their abominations." 
 
 In this passage there is no reference direct or implied to im- 
 mersion. God, speaks simply of sprinkling or pouring clean 
 water. Jerome calls it the water of baptism. What can he pos- 
 sibly mean but the water of purification? 
 
 On Is. lii. 15, he says, "He shall sprinkle many nations ;" 
 and thus unfolds the import of it, " cleansing them in his own 
 
§ 94. APPEAL TO CYPRIAN. 307 
 
 blood, and hy baptism consecrating them to the service of God." 
 Jerome certainly could not extract from sprinkling the idea of im- 
 mersion. But he could easily derive from it the idea purification. 
 
 On Is. iv. 4, he says, " Observe that he shall wash away the 
 rillh of the daughters of Zion, by the spirit of judgment, and 
 purge away the blood of Jerusalem by the spirit of* burning. 
 Concerning whicli spirit of judgment and spirit of burning, John 
 the Baptist spoke in the Gospel, I indeed baptize you with water, 
 but he shall baptize you with the Holy Ghost and with fire. 
 From this we learn that man can bestow nothing but water, but 
 God bestows the Hoi)'' Spirit, by whom filth is washed aiuay, and 
 crimes of blood are purged aivay.^' Here he perfectly agrees with 
 Basil in his views of Is. iv. 4, and in giving to baptize the sense 
 to purify and purge, in the New Testament. 
 
 Again in Ezek. xvi. 9, God says to Jerusalem, " then washed 
 I thee with water, yea, I thoroughly washed away thy blood from 
 thee." On this Jerome thus comments, " I washed tliee in the 
 water of saving baptism," concerning which baptism Isaiah speaks, 
 saying, " when the Lord shall have washed away the filth of the 
 daughters of Zion, and shall have purged the blood of Jerusalem 
 from the midst thereof, by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of 
 burning." 
 
 Flere Jerome explicitly calls the washing by the spirit of judg- 
 ment and the purging by the spirit of burning, of which Isaiah 
 speaks, a baptism. This baptism must mean a moral purifica- 
 tion by the Holy Spirit. It cannot mean an immersion. No 
 wresting of language can force on it that sense. 
 
 Again when Moses, Lev..viii., washed Aaron and his sons with 
 water, Jerome sees in it a sacrament of baptism. He says, " even 
 then the sacraments of baptism symbolized the purification of the 
 world." There is no evidence of any immersion in this case. 
 Moses speaks simply of washing Aaron and his sons, and this 
 Jerome calls a sacrament of baptism, that is of purification. 
 
 I will also let Cyprian say a iew words more before he is 
 discharged. 
 
308 CAUSE OF DR. CARSON's DELUSION. § 95- 
 
 In describing the baptism of heretics in a passage already- 
 quoted, he thus contrasts it with that of the church : " illi extra 
 ecclesiam poUuuntur, hi vero in ecclesia hapiizaniur.^^ Those 
 are poUuled out of the church, these are purified in the church. 
 Here the antithesis shows unanswerably that Cyprian by baptize 
 understood -to purify. 
 
 I have elsewhere fully shown that all of Dr. Carson's remain- 
 ing witnesses testify against him, but none does it more unanswer- 
 ably than the learned Jerome, and the eloquent Cyprian. 
 
 The truth is, and I now do not hesitate to assert it, when Dr. 
 Carson made his sweeping assertions that the Fathers " always 
 without exception use the word ((Saifri^oj) for immersion," he 
 had read very few of the Fathers with any degree of thorough- 
 ness, and was totally unqualified to make such an assertion. 
 And when I adduced passages pointedly exposing the falsehood 
 of this assertion, he knew not on what ground to meet them, and 
 therefore, first, boldly asserted that they could all be explained in 
 one way, and then that they could all be explained in another, 
 and a different way, without proving either assertion. He then 
 tried, for the most part, by second-hand quotations, none of which 
 can endure a critical scrutiny, to cover up his defeat, under a 
 show of defence. 
 
 § 95. Cause of Dr. Carson's Delusion, and notice of Dr. Sears. 
 
 No doubt, like multitudes of others, Dr. C. had confounded the 
 philology of the Fathers with their practice, and because they did 
 in fact immerse, concluded that they regarded /Sa-Trrl^w as mean- 
 ing to immerse. This fallacy runs through the argument of 
 Prof. Sears, in the Christian Review, and yet it is wonderful that 
 a passage quoted by him from Cyril of Jerusalem, did not un- 
 deceive him. 
 
 He translates a passage in which Cyril speaks of a man as 
 6 svi^uvwv ^v roTg vSacfi xal /Da-so'Tj^o/xsvocr, thus, " He who is immersed 
 in water and baptized." Is it not plain that Cyril did not mean 
 
§ 95. NOTICE OF DR. SEARS. 309 
 
 to speak of a man as immersed in water, and immersed ? Could 
 he' have meant anything but immersed in water and 'purified ? 
 The translation of sv^i^vwv is correct. The Latin translator ren- 
 ders it " is qui mergitur," he who is immersed. Abraham Booth 
 renders it, " he who is plunged in water." Liddell and Scott, in 
 their lexicon on the basis of Passow, say of 6uvo) that it is more 
 fully rendered in all senses by subeo, to go under. Hence sv^uvw 
 is to go into and under the water, that is, as correctly translated 
 by Dr. Sears, to be immersed. The rest of the passage clearly 
 exhibits the same sense to purify in ^a-TTj^w. The whole pas- 
 sage is this. " As he who is immersed in the water, and purified, 
 is surrounded by the waters on all sides, so they (i. e. the 
 apostles) were completely purified {s^a.'Krid&riaav) by the spirit. 
 But the water purifies (/Sa'Tr'Tj^sj) the exterior, but the spirit, the 
 soul within, and that incomprehensibly." Here the water in the 
 nominative case is said to baptize. It is proper to say that water 
 purifies, but not that it immerses. So the spirit is said to baptize 
 the soul within. It is proper to say that the spirit purifies the 
 soul within, but not that he immerses it. Still further to confirm 
 this view Cyril goes on to compare the operation of the spirit to 
 that of fire. " Fire penetrates and pervades iron till it all glows 
 with heat. So the Holy Spirit penetrates into the recesses of the 
 soul." He does not represent the Holy Spirit as immersing the 
 soul in anything, but as pervading and purifying it. 
 
 I have before shown that Basil gave in his remarks on Is. iv. 
 4, a three-fold definition of /Sa-TrTKTfxa, viz. 1- Material purifica- 
 tion. 2- Spiritual purification or regeneration. 3. Purification 
 by the trial by fire at the judgment day. 
 
 A passage from his work De SpirituSancto, Cap. 15, illustrates 
 and confirms the third sense — ro rou crui-off (Bam'Ticfixa rrjv iv rfj x^t(fsT 
 (Joxi/xaCiav "kiyuv, ■kcl&ol (py\(iiM oLirodrdKag, 1. Cor. iii. 15. " Calling 
 the trial (by fire) at the judgment, the baptism of fire, as says 
 the apostle." The passage referred to, he, in common with other 
 Fathers, understood as teaching purification, and thus salvation, 
 by fire. He shall be saved, yet so as by fire, 5ia. irv^os. Of im- 
 
310 BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. § 96. 
 
 mersion Paul says nothing in the whole passage. Hilarius thus 
 expresses the common vieW of the Fathers. " Per ignem purga- 
 tus,Jiat salvus.'^ Being purified by fire he may be saved. This 
 is the baptism of fire. It is purification by fire. 
 
 § 96. Baptism of the Holy Spirit. 
 
 On no part of the discussion has Dr. Carson, through his whole 
 volume, made greater efl?brts than on the sense of the expression, 
 so often used in the New Testament, he shall baptize you with 
 the Holy Spirit, auro^ u,aa^ ^oLitrldsi sv 'Trvsufxarj oc^ioj. .The im- 
 portance of the point induces me to give it another separate and 
 prominent notice, even at some hazard of repetition. 
 
 Clearly the whole discussion on this point turns on the question, 
 is the Holy Spirit spoken of as a person M^ho purifies, or as an in- 
 fluence in which Christians are immersed ? and this depends on the 
 rendering of the preposition sv. If we render it by, then a person 
 may be denoted ; thus, he shall baptize you by the Holy Ghost. 
 This demands purify as the sense of baptism, for the Holy Ghost, 
 as a person, does not immerse, he purifies. On the other hand, if 
 we render sv by in, then divine influence is implied, and the sense 
 immerse is admissible, though even then it is not necessary. He 
 shall immerse you in divine influences, may be the sense. Dr. 
 Carson insists that this is the sense, and that by it is denoted the 
 abundance of the gifts or influences of the Spirit, and the entire 
 subjection of the soul to tTiose influences, and that immersion in 
 water is a symbol of these things. In this view Dr. Carson is not 
 peculiar. 
 
 Neander, in his history of the planting of the church, says, 
 that " Submersion is a symbol of the immersion of the whole man 
 in the spirit of a new life." Wahl, Schleusner, Rosenmiiller, and' 
 Bloomfield, are also of opinion that the sense is, copiously to 
 imbue with abundant gifts of the Spirit. But beyond all doubt 
 this view must be erroneous. Indeed it is very remarkable 
 how full and how powerful the testimony of the Fathers 
 
§ 96. BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 311 
 
 is against this view. In Is. iv. 4, it was predicted that the 
 Messiah should purify (ixxada^i^u) by the spirit of judgment 
 (sv crv6i;jxaTj x^jtfswc:), and by the spirit of burning (sv 'TrvsjjL/.arj 
 xa.v(fsus). Here there can be no dispute as it regards the causa- 
 tive sense of sv. 
 
 This passage the Fathers refer to with great frequency, as con- 
 veying the same sense as the passage in question, he shall 
 baptize you with the Holy Spirit, and with fire. Basil says that 
 both passages plainly foretell the same things concerning Christ. 
 Eusebius of Csesarea says that both passages " coincide in sense 
 to a remarkable degree." Origen, Jerome, Cyril of Alexandria, 
 and Theodoret, coincide in this view. 
 
 Origen, in Homil. ii. on Jer., after quoting as a prophecy Is. 
 iv. 4, "the Lord shall purify by the spirit of judgment, and the 
 spirit of burning," thus proceeds : " Therefore, Jesus purifies {^arr- 
 <ri^£j) by the Holy Spirit and fire." 
 
 After explaining his view that two classes of persons are. re- 
 ferred to, one of whom is purified by the Holy Spirit, the other 
 by fire, he proceeds to say, " Blessed is he who is purified by the 
 Holy Spirit, and who does not need the purification resulting from 
 fire," fXT^ 8so[KZ\iog -roC (SaifT'KfiJ.arog tou aito ^v^og. 
 
 Here the use of dito occurs, on which I have already comment- 
 ed. He then proceeds, " Thrice miserable is he who needs 
 to be purified by fire (-^ufO- Blessed is he who has part in the 
 first resurrection, who has preserved the purification (to (SairrKf- 
 fjia) of the Holy Spirit." To speak of preserving ^wn'/^/, is good 
 sense; to speak of preserving an immersion, is absurd. But if a 
 man lost the purification conferred by the Holy Spirit, by falling 
 into moral pollution, then, according to Origen, he was to be puri- 
 fied by fire. Concerning such a one he speaks, as one who 
 needs purification (/Sa-TTTjCjULaToj), and comes to that fire, and of 
 the fire he speaks, as trying him, and finding wood, hry, and stub- 
 ble, consuming it, and thus purifying him. Here he refers to 
 the words of Paul in 1 Cor. iii. 13, 15, and regards the man who 
 is thus purifte4 as saved by fire ((Jia cru^oV). 
 
312 BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. § 96. 
 
 This is the mode, according to Origen, in which Jesus haptizes 
 by fire. I do not in this case vouch for the theology of Origen, I 
 quote him as a witness to the sense of the word /b^a-rr/^w. 
 
 Theodoret, commenting on Is. iv. 4, " He shall purify by the 
 spirit of judgment, and by the spirit of burning," says, 
 
 " He foretells the purification (xa^a^rfjv), by the washing of re- 
 generation, and he declares that it shall be effected by the spirit 
 of judgment, and by the spirit of burning. Since as gold tiied in 
 ihejire, is rendered pure, so he who is thus purified (6V<rTj^o- 
 fxsvog), lays aside the dross of sin. This the blessed John the 
 Baptist proclaimed in the words. He shall baptize you by the Holy 
 Spirit and fire." What can be more explicit? 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria is very full on the same passage, to the same 
 effect, and he says expressly, that, by the spirit of burning, grace 
 given in the rite of purification (fSam'T'Kfix.aTi) is meant, and that this 
 grace proceeds from the Holy Spirit. For we have not been pu- 
 rifie.d (/Ssfa'TrrjVias^a) by water alone, nor by the ashes of a 
 heifer (for sprinkling purifies the flesh alone, as says the blessed 
 Paul), but by the Holy Spirit, and by divine and spiritual fire, 
 which consumes all the pollutions of wickedness in us, and purges 
 out the pollution of sin." 
 
 He thus fixes the sense of the word iSatrit^u, as applied to the 
 Holy Spirit, in two ways, by identifying it in sense with xaSa^i^u), 
 in Is. iv. 4, as applied to him, and by applying the word to a puri- 
 fication by sprinkling with the ashes of a heifer. 
 
 Jerome, with equal explicitness, says, in his comment on Is. iv. 
 4, that John, in his prophecy that Christ should baptize by the 
 Holy Spirit and fire, referred to the Spirit of Judgment, and the 
 Spirit of burning, in this passage, by which we learn that man 
 can give water alone, but that God gives the Holy Spirit, by whom 
 filth is washed away, and crimes of blood are purged away. 
 
 Similar testimony could be derived from the comments of the 
 Fathers, on Mai. i. 1-3. But it is needless. 
 
 By means of such testimony, the controversy as to the baptism 
 of the Holy Spirit is settled most unanswerably, and for ever. 
 
§ 96. BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 313 
 
 Not only is the causative sense of sv thus established by the comments 
 of Eusebius of Cesarea, and other Fathers, on Is. iv. 4 ; but it is no 
 less clearly established by 1 Cor. xii. 13, sv svi 'jfvsviia.Ti yjixsTs 'rta.v. 
 TSgiig h tfoj/xa i^ait'rig&'nii^sv. " By one Spirit we have all been bap- 
 tized into one body." In all of the context of this passage, the 
 Spirit is represented as an active, intelligent divine person, by 
 whom wisdom, faith, and spiritual gifts are given ; and ^v and Sta. 
 are interchanged as equivalent. " To one is given, by (dia) the 
 Spirit, the word of wisdom ; to another, gifts of healing, by (sv) 
 the same Spirit. All these things worketh that one and the self- 
 same Spirit, dividing to every one as he will." After this comes 
 the assertion, — "By one Spirit have we all been baptized into one 
 body" — that is, of necessity, purified and thus united in one spiri- 
 tual body, not immersed into one body. The spirit never immerses 
 externally, and internal immersion is here out of the question, for 
 if immersion were meant, something would follow, into which the 
 mind could be immersed, as spiritual water, or spiritual fire, ac- 
 cording to the conceptions of the Fathers. But immersion into a 
 body is absurd. 
 
 But I do not rest upon this one passage to decide the translation of 
 iv. The numerous testimonies of the Fathers as to the same point, 
 already adduced, and all the proofs that (SwTtTi^o) means to purify, 
 in the ordinance, concentrate upon this point, and establish incon- 
 trovertibly the rendering, he shall baptize you withihe Holy Spirit. 
 
 In addition to this, the antithesis requires it. John did not mean 
 to set forth the abundance of the water used by himself, as if 
 water was scarce, and they thirsty. The idea is ludicrous. And 
 yet, if the second member of the antithesis is designed, as Dr. 
 Carson and others assert, to set forth the abundance of the gifts 
 and influences of the Holy Spirit, the first member should set 
 forth the abundance of water, conferred by John. Thus John 
 should be represented as saying, I indeed confer upon you, in your 
 necessities, abundant supplies of water, I fill and imbue you 
 copiously with it, but he shall confer upon you abundant supplies 
 of divine influences, and shall fill and imbue you largely with 
 
 14 
 
314 BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. § 96. 
 
 them. Besides, if the passage is thus rendered, the very pith and 
 point of it is lost, that is, the contrast between an external purifi- 
 cation, of no saving power, and one that is internal and effectual, 
 produced by the Omnipotent energy of the Divine Spirit. That this 
 is the very pith and point of the passage, is plain from the fact 
 that Basil and Eusebius declare that to baptize by the Holy Spirit 
 and fire, is entirely equivalent to the expression in Is. iv. 4, " he 
 shall purify by the Spirit of Judgment, and by the Spirit of burn- 
 ing," also from the fact that the Fathers see in the words " he shall 
 purify and purge," Malachi iii. 3, a prediction of baptism by the 
 Holy Spirit. Athanasius also expressly declares that to baptize by 
 the Holy Ghost, is to purify, and he does not at all refer to the idea 
 of abundant supplies of divine influence. 
 
 Hence, when on p. 402, Dr. Carson says, that " the baptism of 
 the Spirit refers to the abundance of the gifts of the Spirit," and 
 on p. 311, " that it de^iotes excess, and nothing but excess," and 
 tries to illustrate it by such cases as drunk with oil, joy, blood, 
 &c., p. 310, he is simply following his own imagination, and 
 arraying himself alike against the clear testimony of the New 
 Testament and the Fathers. 
 
 And so long as it is true that the Holy Spirit as a person bap- 
 tizes, it is absurd to speak of being immersed into him. So long 
 also will my assertion " that there is no similitude between the 
 operations of the Holy Spirit and immersion," hold true. Dr. 
 Carson asks, " Is not the resemblance in the effects ?" p. 493. I 
 answer no. The efl^ects of the agency of the Holy Spirit in his 
 work, are to illuminate and to purify. The efliects of immersion 
 as such are nothing definite. The effects of immersion in dye, are 
 to color, in filthy water to pollute, in clean water to purify. If we 
 then simply say, the Holy Spirit immerses, and omit all mention 
 of that into which he immerses, it conveys no definite idea of any 
 effect to the mind. If we simply say that he purifies, it exactly 
 describes his real work. 
 
 My reply therefore to Dr. Carson's lesson in rhetoric needs no 
 chang^, « The Holy Spirit illuminates and purifies. Immersion 
 
^ 96. BAPTISM OF THE HOLY SPIRIT. 316 
 
 as such, does neither. It signifies mode, and nothing else, and it 
 may pollute as well as purify. For this reason I deny the pro- 
 priety of its application to the Holy Ghost, and claim the sense to 
 purify, for this is his glorious, grand, and peculiar work." 
 
 At the same time I freely admit that if sv were not used in the 
 causative sense, and if a person were not meant, and if the words 
 Holy Spirit meant merely divine fnfluences, the idea of abun- 
 dance could be conveyed by the phrase immersion in divine 
 influences ; and that as " to dip the foot in oil" implies plenty 
 of oil, and as " steeping the senses in forgetfulness," or " the 
 soul in the milk of human nature," implies an entire sub- 
 jection of the senses to forgetfulness, and of the soul to the spirit 
 of kindness, so immersion in divine influences might denote, not 
 only abundance of such influences, but also entire subjection to 
 them ; and that the general use of the idea immersion in other 
 cases to denote degradation, calamity, dz;c., would not forbid. 
 For as I have before said, I freely admit the truth of the princi- 
 ple that to justify a metaphor, previous use is not necessary, but 
 only resemblance. But in the cases quoted by Dr. Carson, the 
 words steep, dip, &c., are not used absolutely, but in connexion 
 with something in which the dipping and steeping take place. 
 Hence if Christians are said absolutely to be baptized hy the 
 Holy Spirit, as a person, or the Holy Spirit is said absolutely to 
 baptize them, or to baptize the mind, without reference to any- 
 thing in which immersion can take place, as is the case in the 
 Scripture, and in the Fathers, then it is plain that Dr. Carson's 
 mode of solution cannot apply to such cases, and is of no possible 
 avail to his cause. 
 
 And although I admitted, § 28, No. 16, that it would be pos- 
 sible to use immersion figuratively to denote ideas not involving 
 degradation and calamity, yet Dr. Carson has failed to bring 
 forward any such cases, and the general use is as I have stated, 
 as may be seen by his own examples on pp. 80, 81, 86. 
 
 On p. 311, it is true that he asserts as follows, in reply to a 
 writer in the Congregational Magazine (Prof. J. H. Goodwin) : 
 
316 DR. Carson's candor. § 97. 
 
 " All the instances of classical usage in a figurative application 
 do not confine this word to evil. As to immersion, hapto and 
 baptizo are the same, and immersed in justice, a classical phrase, 
 is not an immersion in evil." 
 
 Yet on p. 52, Dr. Carson says of this very case, " I would not 
 explain this with Dr. Gale, ' dipped as it were in, or swallowed 
 up with justice.' Justice is here represented as a coloring liquid, 
 which imbues the person dipped in it. The virtuous man is 
 dipped to be dyed in justice." He speaks of tincturing thoughts as 
 a similar figure. From all this it is plain that the sense to im- 
 merse is not here of necessity implied at all. Tinctured or dyed, 
 will fully express the sense, and Dr. Carson not only admits, but 
 strongly asserts that bapto often denotes to dye, without respect to 
 mode. After all his efforts, then. Dr. Carson can find but this 
 one case to oppose to my assertion, and in this case I deny the 
 sense of immersion entirely. 
 
 § 97. Dr. Carson's Candor. 
 
 To my proof that what he called " metaphysical nonsense," 
 and for exceeding which he oflTered a premium, is sound sense, and 
 is sustained by the Fathers, he replies, *' I find nothing like it in 
 his quotations ; and notwithstanding the modesty of the President 
 I still think that the union of meanings running into each other, is 
 all his own." p. 494. 
 
 I said nothing oiihe union of meanings running into each other. 
 What Dr. Carson meant by the union of such meanings, I know 
 not. It is not my language. It is his own. I did speak of analogi- 
 cal senses, as running into each other. What I meant I have 
 fully explained. 
 
 Dr. Carson says he can see nothing like it in my quotations. 
 This may be true as a fact, and yet have very little weight as an 
 argument. It is very hard for some men to see, after ridiculing 
 and sneering at an opponent, that he is clearly in the right, and 
 they in the wrong. 
 
§ 98. DR. Carson's bad spirit, 317 
 
 His remarks as to the sense of xXu^w are truly painful, so far 
 as I desire to respect Dr. Carson. In reviewing my translation 
 of itz^ixKxxiad&ai, p. 445, he charges me with " criticising from 
 imagination, and not from a knowledge of the language, and with 
 not justifying my criticism with a single example." I at once 
 arrayed many examples against him, and also, the authority of 
 Stephens, Scapula, Damm, Hedericus, Ernesti, Passow, Schnei- 
 der, and all lexicographers of any note, § 62. I also said that his 
 charge was, upon the face of it, as false as if I were to say that it 
 is criticising from imagination, to translate i)(Jw^ water, and itZ^ 
 fire. I also declared that Dr. Carson's character as an accurate 
 scholar could not long survive such criticisms. One would have 
 supposed that Dr. Carson in such a case would either defend him- 
 self, by confuting me, or else retract his charge. No such thing. 
 He coolly says, " the characteristic meaning of the word kluzo^ is 
 exactly what I have represented, and all the examples accord 
 with this." p. 494. 
 
 This, no doubt, will pass current with the majority of Dr. 
 Carson's readers, and with others who have never read my ex- 
 amples. But if any man desires to judge of the candor of Dr. 
 Carson, to say noticing of conscience, and of the fear of God, let 
 him turn to my examples in § 62, and then again read the as- 
 sertion which I have just quoted. 
 
 Arguments and facts of the clearest kind, are of no use in deal- 
 ing with a man who will thus coolly make assertions without 
 proof, directly in the teeth of unanswerable facts. 
 
 § 98. Dr. Carson's Bad Spirit. 
 
 My censures of his spirit, Dr. Carson answers by a denial of 
 writing in a bad spirit, and by a retort of the charge on me. p. 494. 
 
 " What spirit is indicated by such expressions as ' the guise of 
 zeal for the glory of God V ' Being determined not to admit the 
 truth, he did the only thing that remained, first to misrepresent, 
 
318 DR. Carson's bad spirit. § 98i 
 
 and then to deny it?' If this is not a bad spirit, what will 
 indicate a bad spirit ?" 
 
 To say such things without reason, would indicate a bad spirit. 
 But painful facts may compel an honest belief of such charges. I 
 take no pleasure in saying that facts have compelled me to this 
 belief concerning Dr. Carson. I do not question his piety in the 
 main. But he has done things that I cannot regard as honorable, 
 or honest, and yet thrown over all, the cloak of zeal for the glory 
 of God. I have just called attention to one case. But this is not 
 a solitary or the worst case. Another statement in his first reply 
 to me, much surpasses it. He contemptuously appeals on p. 
 496, to common sense, as deciding that in order to prove my 
 views of the meaning of (SaitTi^u, by the Fathers, I must allege 
 examples in which they use the word in question, and pointedly 
 denies that I do it. Hear his words, " But Mr. Beecher attempts 
 no such thing, he does not appeal to the use of the word by the 
 Fathers, but to other words applied by the Fathers to the same 
 ordinance." He then graciously acquits me of intentional dis- 
 honesty, and insults me by professing to do me the justice to 
 believe that I am the dupe of my own credulity, and that a cre- 
 dulity childishly weak. In reply, I informed Dr. Carson that he 
 had misstated obvious facts, that I did appeal to the use of the 
 word by the Fathers, and that he must have knoicn U, because he 
 tried to answer the passages. See p. 224, § 68. 
 
 In this case he not only grossly misstated a simple matter of 
 fact, but he then ridiculed and insulted me on the basis of that 
 misstatement. I pointed out to him the entire falsehood of his 
 statement. Would not an honest man correct it in a second 
 edition ? Would not an honorable man apologize for the ground- 
 less insult, and retract it ? But Dr. Carson does neither. In the 
 last edition of his reply, he retains the same obviously false 
 statement, and the same insult to me based upon it. 
 
 And yet no one can eulogize Dr. Carson more highly for 
 candor, honesty, and a single-hearted regard to the glory of God 
 
§ 98. DR. Carson's bad spirit. 319 
 
 than he has eulogized himself. He is profuse in his claims of 
 the full possession of nearly every moral virtue. 
 
 But after all, I must judge by acts, and not by words. When a 
 man makes such professions whilst doing such acts, I cannot but 
 call his professions, the guize of zeal for the glory of God, and 
 declare that he is unwilling to admit the truth, and therefore mis- 
 represents and denies it. In the statement of my principles he 
 took the same course, and he has done it again in his second reply. 
 
 But in defence of himself he says, " I never pronounce on the 
 motives of my opponents ; but I always as a matter of duty 
 measure their talents," p. 494. Again, "I never judge the 
 heart," p. 12. What then is the meaning of such charges as 
 these, that I am guilty of "perverse cavilling?" p. 459. That 
 in reasoning with me he is called upon " to put obstinacy to the 
 blush and overwhelm it with confusion," p. 456. That my 
 " artifice is dishonest and uncandid," p. 449. " That my cavilling 
 is unworthy of a candid mind and a sound understanding," p. 
 438. And finally, " that I am guilty of blasphemy," p. 495. 
 
 As to the duty of measuring an antagonist's talents, I admit 
 it, so far as it is implied in a candid and honorable answer of 
 his arguments. But all attempts to destroy the reputation and 
 influence of an antagonist by exposing incidental errors, whilst 
 his main arguments are left unanswered, I regard as dishonor- 
 able and unchristian. 
 
 But Dr. Carson says. " I act on principle, solemnly and 
 deliberately. My design is to show my unlearned readers, what 
 account they are to make of his discoveries, in a balloon above the 
 clouds, from a specimen of what he has done before their own 
 eyes. In questioning a decision of a court of law, is it not proper 
 to show that they who made the decision were men without dis- 
 crimination, and without accurate knowledge of the law ? If such 
 a case is made out has it not the nature of evidence ? 
 
 To all this I reply, the time was when Dr. Carson did not call 
 explicit quotations from Greek writers, on the import of the word 
 
320 DR. Carson's bad spirit. § 98. 
 
 ^a'TTi^w, a balloon above the clouds. When he began the con- 
 troversy, he made numerous quotations from writers of classic 
 Greek, which to the unlearned are certainly as much a balloon 
 above the clouds, as my quotations from the Fathers. Yet he then 
 said, " I shall give a copious list of examples, as it is from this 
 that my readers will be able independently to form their own 
 judgment. This method will doubtless appear tedious and un- 
 interesting to many ; but it is the only method entitled to authority. 
 For a writer on controverted subjects, to give merely his own 
 opinion of the import of his documents, accompanied by a few 
 examples as a specimen of proof, would be the same as if an 
 advocate should present a judge and jury with his own views of 
 evidence, instead of giving them all his facts and circumstances 
 in detail to enable them to decide with knowledge. A work of 
 this kind is not for amusement, but requires patience and industry 
 in the reader as well as in the writer. If the one has ransacked 
 documents to most readers inaccessible, to collect evidence, the 
 other should not grudge the toil of examining the evidence, seeing 
 it is only by such an examination that he can have the fullest 
 conviction of the truth. Is the meaning of this word to be 
 eternally disputed ? If one party says it has this meaning and 
 another that, while a third differs from both, and a fourth is con- 
 fident that all three are wrong, what method can legitimately 
 settle the controversy, but an actual appeal to the passages in 
 which it is to be found ? These are the witnesses whose testi- 
 mony must decide this question ; and consequently the more 
 numerous and definite the examples, the more authoritative will 
 be the decision. And as it is possible to tamper with evidence, 
 the witnesses must be questioned and cross-questioned, that the 
 truth may be ascertained without a doubt. Instead, therefore, of 
 making an apology for the number of my examples, and the 
 length of the observations that ascertain their meaning, the only 
 thing I regret is, that I have not every passage in which the word 
 occurs in the Greek language." 
 
§ 98. DR. Carson's bad spirit. 321 
 
 So spake Dr. Carson when in the first fervor of controversy he 
 girded on his armor. Then, copious extracts from the original 
 writers, were not a balloon above the clouds. Then, it was the 
 duty, even of unlearned readers, to study such extracts, and to 
 form their judgment from them, and they were able so to do, p. 
 480. Then, it was the only authoritative mode. Then, he re- 
 gretted that he had not every passage in which the word occurs 
 in the Greek language. But at last, I place before him and his 
 readers a copious collection of passages from the Fathers, the 
 very best authorities extant, as he pointedly assures us, when lo ! 
 all of a sudden he begins to doubt the capacity of his unlearned 
 readers to understand them. My discoveries are now, it seems, 
 so far as they are concerned, in a balloon above the clouds, and 
 to enable them to judge of them, he feels called on solemnly and 
 deliberately to assail my competency as a scholar, upon some 
 trifling points, merely incidental to the main issue, in order to 
 destroy the force of direct testimony produced by me on the vital 
 point of the whole discussion. 
 
 Dr. Carson professes to do all this on principle, solemnly and 
 deliberately ! He may do it deliberately. But that he can do it 
 with a right spirit, and on right principles, I deny ; and if such 
 maxims were universally followed in controversy, no great ques- 
 tion could ever be settled, and nothing could result but unworthy 
 jangling, and endless confusion. 
 
 Dr. Carson adds, " In like manner, when we ask who are our 
 opponents, and assert that all illustrious scholars of all ages and 
 countries are on our side, our design is not wantonly to wound. 
 There is in this fact a species of self-evidence." 
 
 But Dr. Carson's implication that all illustrious scholars of all 
 ages are with him is entirely unfounded. In principle they are 
 with me, for they all maintain that ^a-TTTi^w has a secondary sense. 
 This even Dr. Carson admits. On p. 55, he says concerning 
 /Sa-n-ri^w, " My position is, THAT IT always signifies to dip ; 
 
 NEVER EXPRESSING ANYTHING BUT MODE. NoW OS I have all the 
 
 14* 
 
322 ATTACKS ON MY COMPETENCY. § 99. 
 
 lexicographers and commentators against me in this opinion, it will 
 be necessary to say a word or two with respect to the authority of 
 lexicons." 
 
 So then, as it regards Dr. Carson's fun'^amental position, the 
 " illustrious scholars" are against him, and not against me, and the 
 presumptive evidence, according to his own principles, is against 
 his system, and not against mine. 
 
 5 99. Attacks on my Competency. 
 
 To this I add that I do not admit that, even on incidental 
 points, he has proved errors on me. I have refrained from an- 
 swering such assaults, because I wished to keep Dr. Carson and 
 my readers to the main issue, and not to lose myself and them in 
 a labyrinth of minute and profitless discussions. 
 
 Such assaults I called logical musquitoes. They have a sting, 
 they buzz, they irritate ; but they have no fatal power, and are 
 so numerous and minute that there is no time to pursue them. 
 But if it were of any importance, they are easily killed. And 
 since Dr. Carson makes so much of them, I will kill a few as a 
 specimen. He arrays seven of them at the beginning of his 
 second reply. 
 
 The first is this. " He makes the words haptismos and katharis- 
 mos synonymous, on the ground that they both, in a certain place, 
 refer to the same rite. This is an error into which no philologist 
 could fall ; it shows a remarkable deficiency in discrimination." 
 
 He here refers to my argument on Jn. iii. 25. I reply, I do 
 not make them synonymous on that ground alone. In view of all 
 the facts of the case, I exercised a critical judgment to that efl^ect, 
 and the testimony of the Fathers shows that I judged rightly. 
 See §68, and § 67, No. 1. 
 
 The second is this. " He makes haptismos a word denot- 
 ing purification in general, because it is a synonyme of the 
 word katharismos ; and the general word katharismos he makes 
 
§ 99. ATTACKS ON MY COMPETENCY. 323 
 
 specific, as it corresponds to haptismos. I have called this legerde- 
 main. Here, also, I might offer a premium for a purer specimen 
 of nonsense," p. 488. 
 
 To this 1 reply, the assertions are both false. I judge that 
 haptismos sometimes means purification in view of evidence, and 
 infer that in that sense it is synonymous with katharismos. The 
 general word katharismos I do not make specific, but apply it as 
 a generic word, to any kind of purification, and I show that 
 the Fathers use haptismos in the same way as a generic term, 
 when it denotes purification. 
 
 The third is, " That the disputed word signifies purification, 
 he proves from Malachi, iii. 1 — 3. Does not even a child see 
 that the prophet does not refer to ritual purification, but to the 
 separation of the chaff from the wheat ; and that the prophecy 
 could have been equally fulfilled had no ritual ordinance of pu- 
 rification ever been instituted ?" 
 
 I reply. This passage plainly predicts a purification of the spirit 
 to be effected by the Messiah ; but the Fathers declare that the pas- 
 sage is a prediction of the baptism of the spirit, to be effected by th*- 
 Messiah. Does not this prove that baptism and purification are 
 synonymous ? If a spiritual baptism was thus predicted of the 
 Messiah, in Mai. iii. 1 — 3, then a new symbolical baptism would 
 arrest attention, and lead to the inquiry, has not the great bap- 
 tizercome ? Now by a critical judgment on the New Testament, 
 I decided that this was the true view, even before reading the 
 Fathers. The Fathers sustain my judgment. 
 
 The fourth is, " He makes the title of John the Baptist origi- 
 nate in the administration of a rite of purification, and he finds 
 proof for this in John's being a moral reformer. May I not offer 
 another premium here ?" I reply, I do not find proof for it in 
 John's being a moral reformer. I merely say that the nam© 
 John the purifier, would be an appropriate name for him as a 
 reformer, which is the truth. As a reformer, it was fit that he 
 should both administer a rite of purification, and be called a 
 purifier. I stated these undeniable facts, and l«ft every man to 
 inf<$r what he pleased from them. 
 
324 ATTACKS ON MY COMPETENCY. § 99. 
 
 The fifth is, " He proceeds on the principle, that every occur- 
 rence of a word must prove its own meaning. No philologist could 
 fall into such an error. The meaning of no word could submit 
 to such a test." 
 
 I proceed on no such principle. My words are these, " Proof 
 of the meaning of a word in one passage, is not of course proof of 
 its meaning in another ; because the meanings of all words are 
 liable to change. Now in all cases where the meaning immerse 
 has been proved by Dr. Carson, to belong to (Sam'Ti^u, I do not 
 deny that it so belongs. But this is not proof of its meaning in 
 all other cases. Its meaning in each case must he decided for 
 itself. ^^ I do not say that each case can or must prove its oum 
 meaning, but that each case must be decided separately. The 
 evidence may be derived from any source, in the passage, or out 
 of it. When one meaning of the word has been established, 
 there may be no reason in many other passages to introduce a 
 secondary sense. But in other cases there may be a reason ; if so, 
 let it be done. Is it not a very different thing to say that the 
 meaning of a word must be decided in each passage separately, 
 from saying that every occurrence of a word must prove its own 
 meaning ? Such a thing I never said. Dr. Carson ought to have 
 had perspicacity enough to know it. 
 
 The sixth is, " With respect to the testimony of Josephus, Mr. 
 Beecher tells us, ' that there was nothing to cause Josephus to 
 think of the mode, or to attach any importance to it.' This 
 observation assumes as a principle, that Josephus had a share in 
 giving this rite its name. Can anything be more unlike a philo- 
 logist ? Can any observation be more destitute of common 
 sense ? Josephus speaks of the rite by the name already given 
 to it." 
 
 I reply, my observation assumes no such principle. I state 
 the fact that Josephus applies the term ^oKritfij to the rite. I 
 then inquire in what sense he probably used it. It has two 
 senses, 1. Immersion, and 2. Washing, or purification. This 
 I had proved, this lexicographers assert. Then to show the 
 
§ 9^. ATTACKS ON MY COMPETENCy. 325 
 
 probability that Josephus used it in the second sense I say, 
 " there was nothing to cause him to think of the mode, or to 
 attach any importance to it. No idea of a fancied reference in 
 the rite to the death of Christ, could Has his mind to the sense im- 
 merse. To him il is plain that it meant nothing but purifying the 
 hody,'^ &c. Does this imply that I conceived that Josephus 
 named the rite ? Not at all. It is merely an effort to show that 
 he used the word (SaifTidig in the sense purijication. Was Dr. 
 Carson so dull that he could not see this 1 It was not enough so 
 unaccountably to misunderstand and misrepresent me, but on the 
 basis of such misrepresentation, he must assail my capacity as a 
 philologist, and my common sense. 
 
 The seventh is, " As a proof that the disputed word is often 
 used in the sense for which he contends, he alleges a passage in 
 which the word is not used at all. Is this philology ? Must this 
 be dignified as criticism ? Can the author possess that dis- 
 crimination which is necessary to determine such a question ?" 
 
 I reply, I did not produce that passage to prove what is as- 
 serted, but to prepare the way for such proof. Was Dr. 
 Carson unable to see that the proof of the point stated was 
 introduced by the preliminary remark numbered 1, and that I 
 then went on to prove the point in No. 2. " They often use 
 (3a,'n^Ti(fii6s in the legal and sacrificial sense so as to exclude any 
 idea but xa^a^itf/xo?." I then quote three passages, one from 
 Chrysostom, and two from Theophylact, to prove the assertion, 
 each containing the word ^ccn'TK^^ios so used. In No. 3, I still 
 further illustrate and confirm the introductory remark. 
 
 Disingenuous as is this criticism of Dr. Carson's, yet his 
 other statement, which I have already exposed, is still worse, 
 for in that he asserts that I do not here appeal to the use 
 of the word (SwjrrKfiios by the Fathers at all. Nay, that I at- 
 tempt no such thing. This he said with the three passages above 
 referred to before his eyes, and afler a few pages he tries to 
 answer them. 
 
 This is worse than bad philology, or bad criticism, or want of 
 discrimination. No man would resort to such measures to 
 
326 SECOND SERIES OF ATTACKS. § 100. 
 
 injure the influence of an antagonist, who had not a desperate 
 cause to defend. 
 
 It is on the strength of such flimsy allegations as these, that he 
 winds up by saying, " This is but a small specimen of the 
 author's qualifications as a critic, yet it clearly manifests his in- 
 competency." 
 
 This Dr. Carson said, be it remembered, whilst he was re 
 fusing to answer quotations from the Fathers expressly defining 
 f3a.<n'Ti^o as meaning to purify, and was calling these a balloon in 
 the clouds ! This he did in order that his unlearned readers, by 
 losing all confidence in me, might conclude that there was 
 nothing in the balloon worth looking at ; — and Dr. Carson took good 
 care not to tell them what was there. Such things appear to me 
 so contemptible that I would not notice them, if Dr. Carson were 
 not endorsed and eulogized as he is. But as men are, they 
 produce their effect, and the cause of truth demands their 
 exposure. 
 
 § 100. Second Series of Attacks. 
 
 The last page and a half of his second reply is employed in a 
 similar onset upon me. " To enable my readers to estimate the 
 qualifications of my antagonist as a controversialist, I shall 
 slightly notice the several particulars which he states in recom- 
 mendation of his view, of the meaning of the word in dispute." 
 
 But this statement of recommendations is no part of my argu- 
 ment. The argument is closed, and my recommendations are 
 based on its truth. Why did he not answer my argument ? 
 That is the proper way to enable them to judge of my qualifica- 
 tions as a controversialist. His real aim is disclosed at the end 
 of his assault, in these words, " Now I call the attention of my 
 plain unlettered readers to this brief specimen of my antagonist's 
 reasoning powers, that they may judge what confidence to place 
 in his criticism. If in matters of common sense he stumbles at 
 every step, can he be trusted in matters of the most profound 
 
§ 100. DR. Carson's aim. 327 
 
 metaphysics ?'* The plain English of this is, Dr. Carson, not 
 being able to answer my argument, goes to work to destroy the 
 confidence of his plain unlettered readers in me, by exhibiting a 
 specimen of my reasoning powers, in a passage where I was not 
 reasoning at all, but was stating recommendations of my view on 
 the assumption that I had already proved my point. 
 
 I will introduce some of his items by the remark that if all 
 should adopt my views as true, the effect would be that every 
 man could be baptized in the way he prefers. No valued practice 
 would be taken away. But the right to deem those wrong who 
 do not immerse, would be taken away. These things are too 
 plain to be denied. 
 
 To express these ideas I said, " the position defended by me, 
 takes nothing from any one, but the right to think others wrong 
 and to censure and exclude them." No candid man could fail 
 to see that in these words I referred specifically to the Baptists. 
 
 Concerning this Dr. Carson says, " He tells us for instance 
 that to adopt his conclusions ' takes nothing from any one but the 
 right to think others wrong.' Now was there ever a purer 
 specimen of absurdity than this ? Were it as true as it is false, 
 it could not take from any man the right to think another wrong." 
 To adopt my views would surely take from every Baptist the right 
 to think those wrong who baptize by sprinkling, and this is plainly 
 all that I meant. Dr. Carson takes my words as if I meant that 
 it would take away in all cases, the general right of thinking 
 others wrong, and then gravely reasons against such a fiction. 
 He proceeds, " Must not every one who thinks his own view on 
 any subject right, think all others wrong who differ from him ? 
 Does not the writer think that I am wrong ?" I reply, the con- 
 text and the nature of the case, limited my meaning to the Baptists, 
 and to the particular right now exercised by them of thinking all 
 who do not immerse, wrong, and of excluding them from the 
 church. Dr. Carson might easily have seen that this was my sense ; 
 but he was hunting after specimens of pure absurdity for the sake 
 
328 IMMERSION INCONVENIENT. § 100. 
 
 of his " plain unlettered readei*s," and to understand me truly 
 was not to his purpose. 
 
 If any man, in interpreting the word of God, should thus look 
 merely at the sound of words, and overlook the end, scope, and 
 spirit of the writer, he could manufacture similar " pure absur- 
 dities" to any amount. To Dr. Carson I will apply his own words, 
 " In a controversialist nothing can compensate for candor." 
 
 I mentioned six considerations as recommending my view. 
 Dr. Carson says, " it is perfect absurdity to talk of recommenda- 
 tions, on one side or the other in such matters. Whatever God 
 has appointed must be observed." 
 
 But could not Dr. Carson see that I regarded my view, on the 
 ground of previous proof, as setting forth the appointment of 
 God ? And is it perfect absurdity to talk of recommendations of 
 God's appointment, after I had proved that it was such ? I did 
 not try to prove that God ordained in the rite of baptism, nothing but 
 purification, by recommendations. I proved it by evidence which 
 Dr. Carson neither did nor could answer, and then I set forth the 
 considerations which do in fact recommend the view, when 
 proved. 
 
 1. Dr. Carson tries to rebut my assertion that my view is 
 " better adapted to the varying conditions of man, and to all 
 changes of climate, times, seasons, and health." He tells us that 
 immersion is healthy in all climates ; that if needed, the warm 
 bath can be used, and that in such sickness as prevents immer- 
 sion, the rite is not a duty. 
 
 But after all, he well knows that immersion, especially in cold 
 weather, and where there are no baptisteries and other con- 
 veniences, is a very troublesome and inconvenient rite, and that 
 in some circumstances it may be impossible, even to those in 
 health. Its inconvenience, in fact, led to a change in the greater 
 part of Europe. Besides, Dr. Carson himself says, that " if it were 
 left optional he would never immerse," p. 448. Is not this a 
 virtual confession of the truth of all that I have said ? 
 
^ 100. MY VIEW LIBERAL AND REASONABLE. 329 
 
 2. I declared my view to be more accordant with the liberal 
 and enlarged spirit of Christianity, as a religion of freedom, de- 
 signed for all countries and all times. 
 
 Dr. Carson replies, " Does the writer mean that the pre- 
 scription of mode, as emblematical in a Christian rite, is incon- 
 sistent with the practice of religion ? Another may as well say, 
 that the prescription of water, or of wine, or of anything else, is 
 equally inconsistent with Christianity. What a notion this writer 
 must have of religious freedom !" 
 
 I reply, an inspired apostle called the Mosaic ritual a yoke 
 that the Jews were not able to bear ; and declared to Gentile be- 
 lievers that in being exempt from it, they were called to liberty ; 
 and when Judaizers would impose on them the necessity of cir- 
 cumcision, he said, " be not entangled again in the yoke of 
 bondage." 
 
 Though of divine origin, yet the observances of Judaism were 
 so excessively inconvenient and troublesome as to be called a 
 yoke, and to be exempt from such forms, under Christianity, was 
 by inspiration called freedom. 
 
 Now immersion is an excessively inconvenient rite, and I 
 had proved that it was not of divine appointment. Was I not 
 then authorized to say that the spirit of Christianity as a religion 
 of freedom from burdensome rites, and my view which delivered 
 Christians from a burdensome rite, were in strict accordance ? 
 
 I did not say, " that the prescription of mode as emblematical 
 in a Christian rite, is inconsistent with the practice of religion." 
 The Mosaic system was not inconsistent with the practice of re- 
 ligion, and yet, though divinely ordained, it was, because of its 
 inconvenience, a yoke. Much more is immersion, which is not 
 divinely ordained, a yoke, and exemption from it is freedom. 
 
 3. I said, " It better agrees with our ideas of what is reasonable 
 and fit." 
 
 Dr. Carson replies, " And will the writer take on him to say 
 that it is not reasonable and fit, in God, to appoint immersion as 
 
330 FORMALISM AND ARROGANCE. § 100. 
 
 the mode of this ordinance, as an emblem of the burial of Christ ? 
 If this is not blasphemy, I know not what blasphemy is." 
 
 I reply — I first proved by evidence that Dr. Carson could not 
 answer, that God did not, in fact, ordain immersion as an em- 
 blem of the death, burial, and resurrection of Christ. And 
 having thus decided that God did not ordain the burdensome rite 
 in question, but allowed men to use the beautiful, simple, and sig- 
 nificant rite of sprinkling, I said this better agrees with our ideas 
 of what is reasonable and fit. And is it blasphemous to regard 
 as peculiarly reasonable and fit what I had just proved that God 
 has actually done 1 
 
 4. I say — " It offers no temptation to formalism, nor does it 
 tend to foster arrogance and exclusion." Dr. Carson replies: 
 " Here is the very spirit of philosophy." How so ? It is mere- 
 ly eulogizing a decision of God, as tending to spirituality, hu- 
 mility, and unity. Is this the very spirit of philosophy ? 
 
 Dr. Carson proceeds — " How does immersion or any other 
 mode appointed by God offer a temptation to formalism ? Is it 
 formalism to observe a mode which by the very supposition is 
 appointed by God ? Is it formalism to observe divine forms ?" 
 
 I reply — Where rites are numerous and complex, even if or- 
 dained by God, they tend to formalism, more than a few simple 
 rites. So it was notoriously in Judaism. Again, a rite which is 
 the grand peculiarity of one sect, and which excludes from it 
 all others, even though real Christians, even if ordained of God, 
 would tend to assume undue importance, and to take the place of 
 spiritual religion. Tiie mere observance of divine forms is not 
 of necessity formalism. Bui to put forms, even divine forms, in 
 the place of spirituality, is formalism. 
 
 But I did not, when I wrote, admit that immersion was a di- 
 vine form. I had proved that it was not. This being the case, 
 much more does it tend to formalism, to exalt such a human form 
 above piety, and to refuse to receive or commune with those 
 whom God has received, and with whom he communes. 
 
§ 100. ADEQUACY TO HARMONIZE THE CHURCH. 331 
 
 " As to arrogance," proceeds Dr. Carson, " is it arrogant to 
 say that immersion is the only mode, if that is the meaning of 
 the word ?" I reply, no, if such is the fact. But the belief that 
 such is the fact, when it is not, tends to arrogance, in its influence 
 on partially sanctified men, as facts show. 
 
 Was it not arrogant, when, in the report of the American Bap- 
 tist Bible Society, it was announced " that the heathen world 
 must look to THEM ALONE for an unveiled view of the glories of 
 the Gospel of Christ." 
 
 And what produced this arrogance ? Was it not magnifying 
 the mere rite of immersion as the exclusive glory of a sect ? 
 And did this not result from their views of the meaning of the 
 word ? 
 
 Nor is this all. I have proved that immersion is not the mean- 
 ing of the word, and it was also on the ground of this proof that 
 I spoke as I did of the influence of the Baptist view of immersion 
 in producing arrogance. 
 
 Dr. Carson proceeds, " As to exclusion, the meaning of the 
 word is not concerned in settling the question of church fellow, 
 ship." 
 
 I reply, it is, in fact, concerned, and it does affect it in fact. 
 Dr. Carson, I know, held to open communion, after the example 
 of Robert Hall. But his brethren in America regard such views 
 as loose and erroneous, and do, as a general fact, exclude from 
 communion all who do not believe and practise as they do, with 
 reference 1o immersion. 
 
 5. I say " it is perfectly adequate to harmonize the church." 
 
 Dr. Carson replies : " What a recommendation ! Is it not ob- 
 vious to every human intellect, that any view of the meaning of 
 the word, if universally received, is equally calculated to effect 
 harmony ?" 
 
 But I did not say, nor mean, that my view, if universally received^ 
 was adequate to harmonize the church. I said unconditionally 
 that it was adequate to do it. I meant that it was better adapted 
 than any other view, to be universally received. The reasons 
 
332 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF PROOF. § 100. 
 
 were, that it leaves to all the mode of baptism which they prefer, 
 and its truth is so easily evinced, that it is eminently adapted to 
 convince all. 
 
 Dr. Carson then, in order to make out an a bsurdity, intro- 
 duces the condition, if universally received, which is purely an 
 idea of his own, and all that produces the aspect of absurdity, and 
 then proceeds to ridicule it, as if it were mine, as follows : 
 
 " The advocates of pouring, of sprinkling, of immersing, &;c. 
 dec, may all equally allege that recommendation. Even if a 
 man says that the word signifies to tattoo ; he may say that, if all 
 parties receive this meaning, it would harmonize the church. Was 
 ever such a specimen of reasoning committed to the types ?" 
 
 I answer, no ; certainly not by me. It is all a pure fiction of 
 Dr. Carson, got up for the benefit of his " plain, unlettered 
 readers," who either cannot or will not see through his sophistry. 
 
 No doubt it will produce its effect. I do not expect that the 
 majority of Dr. Carson's readers will ever see my reply. He 
 has no doubt gained his end with them. But let all candid men 
 judge of the honor of such a course. 
 
 6. I said, " It is susceptible of any degree of proof." To this 
 Dr. Carson replies, " This confounds evidence with recommenda- 
 tion. If it is capable of proof, it should be received without any 
 recommendation. If it is not proved, no recommendation can 
 entitle it to reception." 
 
 But I ask, is it not a great recommendation of a view, that it is 
 adapted to gain universal credence ? And does not abundance of 
 evidence fit a view to gain such credence ? A view may be true 
 in fact, and yet the proof of it be so sparing, that it will never 
 generally prevail. 
 
 I do not then confound evidence with recommendation. I first 
 show that the proof of my views is abundant, and then say that any 
 necessary degree of proof can be adduced. 
 
 I say this, not to show that the view is true, or ought to be 
 adopted. I had already abundantly proved this. I say it to show 
 that the view is likely to be universally adopted, and thus to bar- 
 
§ 100. DR. Carson's reasons. 333 
 
 monize the church. And this certainly is a great recommenda- 
 tion of the view. 
 
 Dr. Carson intimates that he has given but a specimen of his 
 proofs of my incapacity. But he has given enough to enable all 
 candid men to judge of the quality of the rest. His first reply is 
 filled with such things. But I have already spent too much time 
 upon them. I have written thus much, because the eulogists of 
 Dr. Carson talk so loudly of his honor, fairness, candor, learn- 
 ing, and logical discrimination. 
 
 Let now one fact be noticed. He does not dare to charge me 
 with misrepresenting him in one single instance. Nor does he 
 but once charge me with omitting what is essential to a fair view 
 of his opinions, and in that one case, the charge was as obviously 
 incorrect as possible. 
 
 How happens it then that he has scarcely assailed me on a sin- 
 gle point without resorting to misrepresentation ? 
 
 The reason is plain ; he could not assail my true opinions by 
 the truth. Therefore he was under a steady temptation to misre- 
 present them. 
 
 On the other hand, the more clearly his opinions are stated, the 
 easier is it for me to assail them with the truth. 
 
 Again, why was he so tempted to try to destroy my personal 
 reputation as a scholar ? I answer, for want of better arguments. 
 I adopt and apply to Dr. Carson his own words, " No man un- 
 justly disparages the abilities of his opponent who is not con- 
 scious either of having a bad cause, or of his inability to defend a 
 good one." p. 136. On the other hand, I have been willing all 
 along to concede to Dr. Carson any degree of ability which I 
 fairly can. I have made no attacks on his capacity as a scholar, 
 nay I have admitted it. I only say, the greater his ability, the 
 clearer is it that he was endeavoring to sustain a desperate 
 cause. 
 
 No man who was sustained and guided by the truth, would 
 ever have adopted and pursued his course. 
 
 In eonclusion I have nothing to add, but to request all who are 
 
334 DR. carson's reasons. § 100. 
 
 of a candid spirit to read § 70 once more, with which I close the 
 third part of this work. May a truly Christian spirit at length 
 unite all learned scholars and leading minds. Then will all 
 division in the church of God on this momentous question soon 
 cease. May God grant it, and to him shall be the praise ! 
 
NOTES. 
 
 Note 1 on 55 19 and 20, pp. 48—51. 
 
 The analogy between external purification and internal purification, 
 here spoken of, and the manner in which the Fathers commingled both 
 ideas in their views of baptism, are with great clearness illustrated on 
 pp. 264, 265, in the passages quoted from Cyril, Gregory, and Clement. 
 Indeed, it is impossible for a more perfect illustration to be conceived 
 of the ideas here stated. In two cases the import of the analogy 
 cannot be disputed, for xa^a^tfjov and xa^aptfi^ (purification) are used. 
 In the third case /SaTrrtfl'fAa is used in a manner so perfectly similar, 
 that it must have the same sense. Is it not singular that where Dr. 
 Carson has most indulged in efforts to ridicule my views, then the 
 proof of their correctness from the Fathers is clearest? Now when 
 these analogous senses are commingled and made to co-exist, it 
 changes the nature of the external rite by making it a medium of real 
 regeneration, and this is the true idea of Baptismal Regeneration. It 
 also changes the sense of passages which speak of internal purification 
 alone, and makes them the proofs of the doctrine of baptismal 
 regeneration, as I have said. 
 
 Note 2, on p. 68. 
 
 It is common to speak of the modern Greeks as denying that 
 jSa-rrTiTw means anything but immersion. But the learned Gases, a 
 member of the modern Greek Church, in his large and valuable Lexi- 
 con of Ancient Greek, defined /Sa-Trrj^w by /S^ix"> "^^^^i and avrXs'w ; 
 that is, 1. To wet or moisten. 2. To wash or to bathe. 3. To draw 
 water. The Lexicon is in general use among the modern Greeks. 
 See my letters to Rev. Wm. Hague, Boston — Hall on Baptism, p. 37, 
 and " Chronicle of the Church," New Haven, May 25, 1838. See 
 %\%o Remarki on XoiJw, pp. 208^11 of this volnme, for proof that it 
 
336 NOTES. 
 
 denotes merely to wash, and is as applicable when there is no immer- 
 sion as where there is. 
 
 Note 3 on p. 192 and p. 198. 
 
 There is clear proof that I3a'!tri^u denotes washing, or bathing by 
 pouring, in the use of language describing bathing rooms and appara- 
 tus. In the hot baths there was no immersion. The hot bath, in the 
 public baths at Pompeii, was a basin 12 feet long, 4 feet 4 inches wide, 
 and only 1 foot four inches deep. Around this was a marble bench, 
 below the surface of the water, on which the bathers sat. They first 
 scraped themselves, and were then washed by having water poured over 
 them from vases, or pails. But the name of the warm bath was in Greek 
 (ScfTrTKfTTjpiov, in Latin, Lavacrum. See Eschenberg's Manual, pp. 
 140, 639. - See also Potter's Grecian Antiquities, Vol. 2, p. 368, for 
 proof of the same fact. Dr. Smith, in his Dictionary of Classical 
 Antiquities, p. 148, states that the vessel from which water was poured 
 on the bathers, was also called (3a<n'TKir7}piov, and refers to Pliny for 
 his authority. His words are, " The word baptisterium, is not a bath 
 sufficiently large to immerse the whole body, but a vessel or labrum^ 
 containing cold water for pouring over the head." — Plin. Ep. v. 6, and 
 Ep. xvii. 2. 
 
 This is only one more of the already innumerable proofs of the 
 radical fallacy of Dr. Carson's notions. It also clearly sustains Gases, 
 in defining /Sacrri^w by Xou'w, to wash. See Note 2. 
 
 Note 4 on p. 242. 
 
 There is one of my quotations on which Dr. Carson has made an 
 assertion to which I reply, by here annexing a part of my reply to Rev. 
 Wm. Hague, on the same passage. It is the passage from Clement, 
 p. 63, \ 60. 
 
 I translate si^l xoirrj, "upon a couch." Mr. Hague, following 
 Potter, translates it " post concubitum." Dr. Carson translates it " on 
 account of the bed." Both deny that it can mean a couch to be 
 reclined on at meals. The fact is that suv^ and X^j^oj are never used 
 to denote such a couch. But xXi'vt] and xo»V^ are used to denote 
 either such a couch, or a bed for sleep, or a marriage bed. In my 
 reply to Mr. Hague I answer Dr. Carson's question, " Where did the 
 
x\OTES. 337 
 
 r 
 
 President learn that koite is a dinner couch 1" It appears that I learned 
 it of Xenophon the Athenian. Dr. Carson says that the passage means 
 " they were immersed on account of the bed," that is, pollution con- 
 tracted there. If Dr. C. means by this, the pollution of sexual inter- 
 course, his view and that of Mr. Hague in effect amount to the same 
 thing. And this being the only pollution peculiar to the bed, after 
 which washing was prescribed, I suppose that he must refer to it. His 
 mode of arriving at his sense is very awkward — " on account of the 
 bed, that is, pollution contracted there." The remarks of Hervetus 
 on this passage are these : " The Jews washed themselves, not only at 
 sacrifices, but also at feasts, and this is the reason why Clement says 
 that they were purified, or washed upon a couch, that is, a dining couch 
 or triclinium. To this Mark refers, chap. vii. and Matth. chap. xv. 
 Tertullian also refers to it when he says, Judasus Israel quotidie lavat" 
 (The Jewish Israel daily washes). 
 
 I have adopted the same view, and I now subjoin the defence of it 
 already referred to. See my letters to Rev. Wm. Hague, pp. 21-26. 
 
 In this case I do not admit the charge of error. To translate 
 iiti xoirr], upon a couch, is not erroneous. For, 1. The words will 
 admit of this translation. 2. The Syntax will admit of it, and, 3. The 
 context ; and, 4. The nature of the things spoken of call for it. 
 
 1. The words will admit of my translation. It will not be doubted, 
 I suppose, that xoiVr] can mean a bed or couch. Who does not know 
 that this is its primary sense, and that the sense concubitus is only 
 secondary and derivative 1 Again, it will not, I think, be denied that it 
 can mean a couch at a feast. For Xenophon, in his Memorabilia, 
 authorizes the usage. Speaking of the marks of honor due from the 
 younger to the elder, he mentions " rising up in their presence, honoring 
 them with a soft couch, xoiVrj ixakaxyj, and giving them the precedence 
 in speech." In this case, the couch is obviously not a bed for repose at 
 night, but one to recline on in a circle engaged in conversation, and 
 participating in the enjoyments of social life. In short, it was, as 
 Struzius well remarks, in his learned and critical Lexicon Xenophon- 
 teum, " lectus quietiset convivii,"a couch on which to repose and to 
 feast, A*. 2, 3, 16. Morell also, in his Lexicon Prosodaicum, gives 
 xXi'vr] and xoiVr; as synonymes. Xenophon the Athenian is surely 
 sufficient authority for Clement the Athenian in using the word in 
 this sense. As to i'ffi, you will not, I suppose, deny that it can be 
 
 15 
 
33« NOTES. 
 
 translated upon in this case, inasmuch as this is its original and primary 
 sense, and after is only a derivative and secondary sense. The w^ords, 
 then, will admit of my translation. So, too, will the Syntax. Is it not 
 as truly grammatical to say, it was the custom of the Jews to be bap- 
 tized upon a couch, as it is to say, it was the custom of the Jews to be 
 baptized " post concubitum V 
 
 We come, then, to the context, and to the nature of the things 
 spoken of. What, then, is the context ? Has Clement been speaking 
 of concubitus, or of washings after concubitus, among the Gentiles, 
 that he should here refer to this kind of washing among the Jews? I 
 answer, no. He has, indeed, spoken of the night, but not with any 
 reference to sexual pollution, as you seem to indicate, by copying from 
 Potter a reference to Rom. xiii. 13, but to inculcate a habit of keeping 
 the thoughts on God and eternity, even in our dreams. The following 
 is the train of thought preceding the passage I have quoted. If a man 
 has truly learned to love God, he will not lose his habits of virtue in 
 any way — neither in a vision nor in a dream, nor in any actings of the 
 imagination. Since a habit never ceases to be a habit, and the dreams 
 of the night flow from the habits of thought in the day ; therefore, 
 the Lord commands us to watch, that we may keep our natural life as 
 pure by night as by day. There is nothing that tends to sin in the 
 natural night. Indeed, it is favorable to serious thought, for it calls off 
 the mind from the senses, and leaves it free to think of God. The 
 night that injures the soul is a moral night. It is immersion in the 
 things of time and sense, so as to exclude eternity and God. But 
 happy are they who see God, according to the Apostle, who says, the 
 night is far spent, the day is at hand; let us, therefore, cast off* the 
 works of darkness, and let us put on the armor of light. Rom. xiii. 12. 
 Here, says he, Paul " figuratively represents by the day, and by light, 
 the Son of God — and by the armor of light his doctrines." In like 
 manner he intimates, that we, being washed, should come pure and 
 neatly apparelled to engage in sacred rites and prayers ; and that our 
 being thus purified externally and neatly arrayed, is merely for the sake 
 of its symbolical import ; for true purity consists in placing the affec- 
 tions on holy things. Then follows the passage which I quoted. " And, 
 indeed, an image of purification (baptism) may have been transmitted 
 from Moses to the poets thus. Penelope, having washed herself, and 
 having on her body clean apparel, goes to prayer ; and Telemachus, 
 
NOTES. 339 
 
 having washed his hands in the salt sea, prayed to Minerva. And it 
 was the custom of the Jews that they should oft purify (baptize) them- 
 selves upon a couch :" that is, at their meals, and reclining upon a 
 couch. Let it now be remembered, that there was a washing of hands 
 at meals and feasts among the Jews, and that it was not a matter of 
 mere decorum but of religious obligation. It was also a prominent 
 custom (s^o^) of the Jews. It was among the elders a prominent 
 subject of religious law. So important was it deemed, that our Saviour 
 and his Apostles were again and again called to account for neglecting 
 it, and in view of it our Saviour felt himself called on repeatedly to 
 maintain the superior importance of purity of heart over any external 
 forms of purification. See Matt. xv. 1-20; Mark vii. 1-23; Luke xi. 
 37-41. Let it be remembered, that these passages had made a strong 
 impression on Clement's mind, as appears by the deep interest with 
 which he, in other parts of his works, refers to them. Let it be remem- 
 bered, that Clement's preceding train of thought is precisely the same 
 with that of Christ in these passages ; that is, to exalt mental purity 
 above all its images and symbols. Let it be remembered, too, that in 
 the view of Clement, Pedagog. Lib. 2, Cap. 4, Potter, p. 113, Vol. 1, 
 Oxford, 1715, meals and public feasts were highly religious occasions, 
 and that he recommends to open them by praising the Creator, and 
 during their progress to introduce devotional Psalms — (as Ps. 33), and 
 that he speaks of the heathen song ((TxoXiov) during feasts, as xa-r' 
 gjxova 'E/3pajxwv -,]^aX(jiwv (after the image of the Hebrew Psalms) ; 
 and will any one dare to say, that it was not both natural and appro- 
 priate for him to pass in thought from the religious washing of hands 
 by Telemachus, to a religious washing of hands by the Jews, at their 
 meals and public feasts? What custom more prominent, more public, 
 more likely to excite universal attention, than this? It was almost a 
 national badge of the Jews. Not a day could be spent with them 
 without seeing it at least three times observed, and in all probability 
 more. " For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their 
 hands oft, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders." — Mark vii. 3. 
 
 But what in this train of thought should lead him to ipention the 
 washing suggested by Potter ? Surely, the chaste Penelope, in the 
 absence of Ulysses, and the unmarried Telemachus, needed no such 
 washing. 
 
 Besides, it was not merely a washing, but one oft-repealed {^oWaxis), 
 
340 NOTES. 
 
 that is by Clement ascribed to the Jews. And we know that the Jews 
 at meals did often wash their hands, as Clement says. 
 
 But did the law call for an oft-repeated washing in the case referred 
 to by Potter ! Not at all. See Lev. xv. 16-18. Was there any reason 
 or motive to repeat it 1 None at all, for it could not shorten in the 
 least the stated time of uncleanness. The law was, wash in the morn- 
 ing, and be unclean till evening. 
 
 Was this a washing common to all the Jews, as such? No, it was 
 obviously designed for those only who were married. Was it a wash- 
 ing that they would be likely to perform in a public and ostentatious 
 way, so that it should be a national badge, and excite universal attention 
 and produce imitation? Let common sense judge. Of all Jewish 
 washings this must have been the most private. W^hat man, and 
 especially what woman, would wish ostentatiously to proclaim the 
 reason of washing in such a case ? How unlike to this secret washing, 
 that left its subjects still unclean till evening, was the public washing 
 of Telemachus, of which Clement had just spoken, which made him 
 clean at once, so that he was not obliged to wait till the next day before 
 he could engage in religious services. 
 
 I freely confess, that to introduce the idea " post concubitum" in 
 such a connexion seems to me alike at war with taste, and with the 
 eminently spiritual train of thought in the context. If the words, or 
 the laws of syntax forced it on me, I would adopt it, but still with 
 great reluctance ; for it interrupts a current of pure spiritual thoughts 
 by an idea, such that even you preferred not to present it in a plain 
 English dress, but veiled it under a euphemism, or hid it in the l^atin 
 tongue. 
 
 But neither the words nor the syntax forced it on me. The primary 
 and natural meaning of the words gives the sense that I claim. To 
 educe the other you are obliged to resort to derived and secondary 
 senses. 
 
 I have a great respect for Archbishop Potter. But I cannot, on the 
 ground of his naked assertion, adopt a translation so repulsive and so 
 out of keeping with the letter and spirit of the context. If you still 
 choose to adhere to it, you are free to do so. But I do demand that 
 you shall not pronounce my translation erroneous till you have proved 
 it so ; nor charge me with haste till you give some evidence from the 
 context that I had not patiently investigated the relations of the passage 
 
NOTES. 341 
 
 before I translated it ; nor sneer at light from Illinois till you have not 
 merely asserted but 'proved that Archbishop Potter has given us the true 
 light ; nor try to destroy the authority of my citations till you have 
 proved them incorrect. 
 
 And let me here anticipate any reply to my argument from the sen- 
 tence that follows: " Well therefore has it been said, be clean, not 
 merely by washing, but in your mind." It may be said, that Xourpw, 
 washing, implies bathing, and cannot be applied to the washing of 
 hands. To this I reply, it is not so. Cyril of Alexandria applies to 
 the high-priest, oc'ToXojtfajro, to denote merely washing his hands and 
 feet in the laver; and Xourpov is applied by Basil to purification by 
 sprinkling or pouring ; and so also it is by Photius and others. And a 
 basin for washing the hands and face is called by Pollux and Anaxilas 
 Xourrjpiov, and is used by way of contrast to a bathing tub ; thus " in 
 baths there are no wash-basins," XouT7;pia. 
 
 And now let the candid reader judge, have I erred in giving to 
 (Sam'TKfixa, the sense purification, in its relations to such a passage as 
 this? especially when Clement calls the washing of»hands, sixwv /Sa-n'TiC- 
 /xaroj, an image of baptism ? An image of purification, surely, it is — 
 of immersion, it is no image at all. 
 
 Have I erred in believing, that by often baptizing on a couch, he 
 meant that kind of purification which was practised by the Jews, so 
 often and so pertinaciously as to attract to itself in a peculiar manner 
 the notice of Christ, and not a washing, private — not universal, not oft- 
 repeated. 
 
 I am still further confirmed in my view of this passage, by noticing 
 the extensive and spiritual import given by Cyril of Alexandria to the 
 washing of hands and feet, by the priests of old. By washing their 
 hands and feet, he tells us, they show forth the purity and sincerity of 
 all their deeds and icays, so that it denotes entire purity of life. And 
 he repeatedly speaks of it as a designed type or image of the grace of 
 God in Christian baptism. Indeed, this seems to have been a familiar 
 ideate all writers of the Alexandrian school, such as Clement and 
 Cyril. And inasmuch as Cyril expressly mentions, as a baptism, the 
 sprinkling of the ashes of a heifer ; we cannot fail to see, that by bap- 
 tism he meant purification and not immersion ; and that he and Cle- 
 ment regarded the washing of hands not as an image of immersion, for 
 it was not, but as an image of purification. 
 
342 NOTES. 
 
 Note 5 on Part 11. Chap. II. 
 
 Exposition of Romans vi. 3, 4, and Col. ii. 12. 
 
 Dr. Carson has gloried so greatly in the passages here interpreted, 
 that it is remarkable that he makes no reference at all to this chapter. 
 Perhaps, he did not see it. At all events the argument is as yet 
 unanswered. 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 Page 18, line 4, for D"'Mit3 read t]"'5^n'a 
 
 r^'-} 
 
 a 
 
 a 
 
 r, " 
 
 D55 
 
 20, 
 
 « 
 
 23, " i5t2 
 
 - T 
 
 29, 
 
 a 
 
 11, " ^5p. 
 
 34, 
 
 a 
 
 20 " Dib 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 32, "^ 
 
 
 33, 
 
 42, 
 
 
 12, " 
 6," 
 
 ^ro: 
 
 68, 
 
 u 
 
 26, "^ 
 
 
 (( 
 
 Note, « 
 
 h^to 
 
 into 
 
 ' 65, line 1 0, at the beginning, for bapiismus, read baptismum. 
 ' 75, foot note, after usage, put a period. 
 ' 192, line 12, for yril read ynn 
 ' 209, line 6, for Niceplwras, read Nicephorus. 
 ' 264, line 13, for Gallandias, read Gallandius. 
 
^ 
 
 7 
 
 »»♦