^r\r\r^ 
 
 f-V^ 
 
 
 
 ^f^f^ 
 
 m 
 
 mm 
 
 \ j^ ^^ ^ 
 
 I^i^l 
 
 %f^'^^.f^. 
 
 ^,!^ 
 
 
 
 •A^t^^^^i 
 
 oi *t ^i««%.-«jr Sf.,,.^ 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 '>^, 
 
 Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. 
 
 SOI 
 
 A^^?iezv Coll. on Baptism, No. <r>4-t i O 
 
 ^ A'^ 
 
^-^.r-^ 
 
 AAf 
 
 .^m^ 
 
 '^- 
 
 /^•' N'^\^ 
 
Digitized by the Internet Archive 
 
 in 2011 with funding from 
 
 Princeton Theological Seminary Library 
 
 http://www.archive.org/details/inquiryintousage 
 
AN OaUIEY 
 
 THE USAGE OF BAnTIZll, 
 
 AND THE NATTJKB OF 
 
 JUDAIC BAPTISM, 
 
 AS SHOWN BT 
 
 JEWISH AND PATEISTIC WEITINGS. 
 
 JAMES W/DALE, D.D., 
 
 PA8I0B OF THE MEDIA PBESBYIEBIAN CHURCH, DELAWABE CODNIT, PA. 
 
 ®^irb ^Mtifltt. 
 
 BdnTifffia vjv rb "fouSa'ixdv, rd punwv cwfiaTixaJv anaXXdrTov, 06 tBv 
 xazd TO Guv£i8bq dfiapTTjiJ.dTwv. Chbtsostom. 
 
 PHILADELPHIA: 
 
 WM. RUTTER & CO. 
 
 1873. 
 
" The rsal difficulty has been, not that the subject has been discussed too 
 much, but that the discussion Jias not been sufficiently radical and exten- 
 sive ; that much very important evidence has been sparingly used, if used 
 at all." Beeches. 
 
 " If I speak with confident boldness from my own conviction, iet Mm 
 contradict still more boldly whom I do not convince." Stieb. 
 
 Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1S69, 
 By James W. Dale. 
 
 In the deck's Office of the District Court for the Eastern District of PennsylTania. 
 
 OAXION FB£SS OF SHEBMAN & 00., 
 PHILASELPHIA. 
 

 
 .^.""^^^^ 
 
 GENERAL VIEW OF COl^TENTS. 
 
 r'T^i 
 
 1. 
 
 PAQI 
 
 Criticisms op Classic Baptism. 
 
 By The Christian Press, The National Baptist, The Examiner and 
 Chronicle, The New Englander, The Keligious Herald, and The 
 Baptist Quarterly, stated and answered, 19-58 
 
 2. 
 
 Jewish Writers. 
 
 Josephus, Philo, Jesus the Son of Sirach, . ... 61-128 
 
 3. 
 
 Old Testament. 
 
 As interpreted by Patrists, 129-342 
 
 4. 
 
 Apocrypha. 
 
 II Maccabees 1:19-36; Judith 12: 7-9, .... 343-375 
 
 5. 
 
 New Testament. 
 
 Jewish Baptisms, ... 377-388 
 
 6. 
 
 Josephus. 
 
 Judaic and Johannic Baptisms, . «... * 889-390 
 
 7. 
 
 Eesults. 
 
 I. Material for judgment. 2. Usage of Jew and Greek harmonious. 
 3. Jewish baptisms not dippings. 4. The theorists made apologists. 
 5. Classic Baptisn\ confirmed. 6. Appropriation — Ceremonial puri- 
 fication, 391-400 
 
 (iii) 
 
BAPTISMS EXAMmED. 
 
 JEWISH WEITEKS. 
 Condition of Intttsposition and Condition "without Intitsposition. 
 
 1. Baptized, sword. Jewish War, ii, 18, 
 
 2. " ship. Life of Josephus, ^ 3, 
 
 3. " " Jew. Ant., ix, 10, 
 
 4. " " " iii, 9, . 
 
 5. " drowned. " iii, 10, 
 
 6. " killed. " iii, 10, 
 
 7. " drowned. " xv, 3, . 
 
 8. " " " i, 22, . 
 
 9. " ship. " iii, 8, . 
 
 10. " " Jewish War, ii, 20, 
 
 11. " killed. " i, 27, 
 
 12. " city, Jotapata. Jewish War, iii, 7 
 
 13. " " Jerusalem. " iv, 3 
 
 14. " reason. Philo, 
 
 15. " made drunk. Philo, 
 
 16. " " Jew. Ant., X 
 
 17. " stupefied. " iv, 4, 
 
 18. " purified ceremonially. Sirach, 34 : 30, 
 
 19. " John's and Jewish. Jew. Ant., xviii, 6, 
 
 PAGE 
 
 61 
 64 
 64 
 64 
 65 
 65 
 66 
 66 
 69 
 71 
 74 
 76 
 78 
 83 
 84 
 92 
 100 
 112 
 389 
 
 Old Testament. 
 20. Baptism of the waters, change of condition. Gen. 1 : 2, 
 
 28. 
 
 29. 
 30. 
 
 . 134 
 
 Ex. 15 : 23-25, . 143 
 
 Gen. 6 : 13, . . 148 
 
 II Kings, 5:14, . 154 
 
 John 5:4, . .164 
 
 Levit. 15:5, . . 169 
 
 Ezek. 16 : 4, 9, . 172 
 
 condition, Ezek. 36 : 25, 26, . 195 
 by washing hands and feet, change of 
 
 condition, Ex. 40 : 30-33, . 175 
 
 by sprinkling, change of condition, Levit. 14:4-7, . 184 
 by washing and sprinkling, change of 
 
 condition, Ps. 51 : 2, 7, . . 186 
 
 21. 
 
 
 of a fountain 
 
 22. 
 
 
 by deluge. 
 
 23. 
 
 
 of Naaman, 
 
 24. 
 
 
 by Bethesda, 
 
 25. 
 
 
 by washing, 
 
 26, 
 
 
 i( 
 
 27. 
 
 
 by pouring ai 
 
 (iv) 
 
BAPTISMS EXAMINED. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 P&GE 
 
 81. 
 
 Baptism by circumcision, change of condition, 
 
 , Joshua 5: 3, 9, 
 
 206 
 
 32. 
 
 
 by drops of blood 
 
 1 
 
 (( 
 
 Exod. 12 : 7, 12, 13, 
 
 216 
 
 33. 
 
 
 by flaming sword 
 
 
 (( 
 
 Gen. 3 : 24, . 
 
 222 
 
 34. 
 
 
 by a coal of fire, 
 
 I( 
 
 <( 
 
 Isaiah 6 : 5-7, 
 
 239 
 
 35. 
 
 
 by water, spirit. 
 
 and fire. 
 
 , change of 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 condition. 
 
 1 Isaiah 4:4, 
 
 248 
 
 36. 
 
 
 of iron and by sins. 
 
 , change of condition, II Kings 6 : 5, 6, . 
 
 251 
 
 37. 
 
 
 by pollution, 
 
 (< 
 
 (( 
 
 Job 9: 30, 31, 
 
 268 
 
 38. 
 
 
 by suff"ering, 
 
 u 
 
 11 
 
 Ps. 69:1,2, . 
 
 272 
 
 39. 
 
 
 by sincerity, 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 Cant. 5 : 12, . 
 
 274 
 
 40. 
 
 
 by repentance, 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 Isaiah 1 : 16, 17, . 
 
 277 
 
 41. 
 
 
 by iniquity. 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 Isaiah 21 : 4, . 
 
 284 
 
 42. 
 
 
 by sea and cloud, 
 
 ti 
 
 (( 
 
 Ex. 14:19,31, 
 
 289 
 
 43. 
 
 
 into Moses, 
 
 u 
 
 It 
 
 I Cor. 10 : 2, . 
 
 305 
 
 44. 
 
 
 by the Jordan, 
 
 <c 
 
 (( 
 
 II Kings 2:8, 
 
 315 
 
 45. 
 
 
 into Joshua, 
 
 (( 
 
 i( 
 
 Josh. 3 : 16, 17, . 
 
 320 
 
 46. 
 
 
 by pouring, 
 
 (( 
 
 (( 
 
 I Kings 18: 32, . 
 
 328 
 
 
 
 
 Apocrtpha. 
 
 
 
 47. Baptism by sprinkling, change of condition, II Mace. 1 : 19-36, 346 
 
 48. " by spring water, » " Judith 12 : 5-9, . 352 
 
 New Testament. 
 
 49. Baptisms, diverse baptisms, change of condition. Heb. 9:9, 10, . 379 
 
 Eesttlts. 
 
BAPTISMS OF JOSEPHUS, PHILO, AJ^J) SON OF 
 SIRACH, CLASSIFIED. 
 
 1. 
 
 Intusposition without Influence. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 " He mersed the entire sword into his throat." . . Josephus, 61 
 
 2. 
 
 Intusposition with Influence. 
 
 Vessel mersed in the Adriatic Josephus, 63 
 
 Vessel on the point of being mersed " 63 
 
 Billow, rising above, mersed them •' 63 
 
 Mersed with their vessels. ...... " 63 
 
 Mersed, rising to the surface. " 63 
 
 3. 
 
 Intusposition for Influence. 
 
 Pressing down and mersing until they drowned him. . Josephus, 66 
 
 Mersed in the pool he died *' 66 
 
 Mersed his ship voluntarily " 66 
 
 4. 
 
 FiQUTiE Grounded in Destructive Mersion. 
 / 
 
 Swam away from the city as from a mersed ship. . . Josephus, 71 
 
 As a last storm mersed the young men. ... " 71 
 
 SECONDARY USE. 
 
 1. 
 
 Baptism without Mersion. 
 
 He would baptize the city 
 
 "Who baptized the city . 
 
 Reason baptized by things coming upon it. . 
 
 ( vi) 
 
 Josephus, 76 
 
 " 76 
 
 Philo, 76 
 
BAPTISMS CLASSIFIED. 
 
 Vll 
 
 Appropriation. 
 Before they become thoroughly drunk (baptized). 
 
 8. 
 
 Verbal Figure. 
 Baptized by drunkenness into insensibility. . 
 
 PAQB 
 
 . Philo, 84 
 
 JOSEPHXJS, 92 
 
 Ceremonial Purification. 
 
 Baptizing by heifer ashes, they sprinkled it. . . Josephus, 100 
 Baptized from the dead Son of Sirach, 112 
 
BAPTISMS OF SCRIPTURE AND APOCRYPHA. 
 
 AGENCIES AND CHANGES OF CONDITION. 
 
 WATEE BAPTISMS. 
 
 •WATER ITSELF BAPTIZED. 
 
 A New Quality Imparted. 
 
 PAOK 
 
 The Spirit moved upon the waters, 134 
 
 The pool of Myrrha made sweet, 143 
 
 Baptism BT Water. 
 Special Influence Exerted. 
 
 Deluge, purging the world, 148 
 
 Jordan, healing the leprosy, 154 
 
 Bethesda, curative of any disease, 164 
 
 Applied to the Body, more or less. 
 
 General washing, 169 
 
 « <' 172 
 
 Part of the body, hands, and feet, 175 
 
 Pouring and Sprinkling. 
 
 Leviticus 14 : 4-7, • . . .' . 184 
 
 Psalm 51: 2, 7, 186 
 
 Ezekiel 86 : 25, 26, 196 
 
 Baptism by Blood. 
 
 Circumcision, 206 
 
 Blood dropping from the cross, 216 
 
 Baptism by Eire. 
 
 Water, Spirit, and Eire, 248 
 
 Coal of Eire, . . . .239 
 
 Elaming Sword, 222 
 
 ( viii ) 
 
BAPTISMS OF SCRIPTURE AND APOCRYPHA. IX 
 
 Baptisms Involving Mental and Mokal Inflttbnce. 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Sins, 262 
 
 Corruption, > 262 
 
 Trouble, 262 
 
 Faith, 262 
 
 Kepentance, 277 
 
 Iniquity, 284 
 
 Baptism anb Mibacle. 
 
 Bed Sea, j . 289 
 
 Jordan divided, 315 
 
 Passage of the Jordan, 320 
 
 Altar of Carmel, ^ .... 328 
 
 Temple fire rekindled, 845 
 
 Baptisms Cbremoniallt Ptjeipting. 
 
 Baptism from heathen camp, 352 
 
 Baptism from diverse defilements, 379 
 
 Symbol Baptism. 
 
 Ceremonially Purifying Baptism a Symbol of Spiritual Purification. 
 
 Judaic and Johannic baptism in contact, 389 
 
PATEISTIC IKTERPEETERS. 
 
 Gi:kicsis 1 : 2. 
 
 PASS 
 
 TertuUian, Did3niivis Alexandrinus, Ambrose, Jerome, and Basil 
 
 Magnus, 134 
 
 ExoDTis 15 : 23-25. 
 Ambrose, 143 
 
 Genesis 6 : 13 ; 7 : 1, 18, 22. 
 Tertullian, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Didymus Alexandrinus, . . 148 
 
 II Kings 5 : 14. 
 Septuagint, Ambrose, 164 
 
 John 6:4. 
 Ambrose, Didymus Alexandrinus, 164 
 
 Leviticus 15 : 6. 
 Chrysostom, Clemens Alexandrinus, 169 
 
 EzEEiEL 16 : 4, 9. 
 Jerome, ' 172 
 
 EzEKiEL 36 : 25, 26. 
 
 Jerome, Hilary, Didymus Alexandrinus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, 
 
 Cyprian, 196 
 
 Exodus 40 : 30-83. 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, .... 175 
 
 Leviticus 14 : 4-7. 
 Ambrose, 185 
 
 (X) 
 
PATRISTIC INTERPRETERS. XI 
 
 Psalm 51 : 2, 7. 
 
 PASS 
 
 Ambrose, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen, . 186 
 
 Joshua 5:3, 9. 
 Justin Martyr, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril, Origen, .... 207 
 
 ExoDxrs 12:7, 12, 13. 
 Chrysostom, Gregory Nazienzen, Theophylact, Cyprian, Tertullian, , 216 
 
 Genesis 3 : 24. 
 Ambrose, Origen, Basil, 222 
 
 Isaiah 6 : 5-7. 
 Ambrose, Origen, Gregory Thaumaturgus, Eusebius, .... 239 
 
 Isaiah 4 : 4. 
 Basil Magnus, 248 
 
 II Kings 6 : 6, 6. 
 Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenaeus, Chrysostom, Ambrose, . . 261 
 
 Job 9: 30, 31. 
 Aquila, 269 
 
 Psalm 9 : 15. 
 Jerome, 270 
 
 Psalm 69 : 1, 2. 
 Symmachus, Jerome, 272 
 
 Canticles 5 : 12. 
 Ambrose, . ■ 274 
 
 Isaiah 1 : 16, 17. 
 Justin Martyr, Hippolytus, Jerome, 277 
 
 Isaiah 21 : 4. 
 Septuagint, 284 
 
 Exodus 14 : 19-31. 
 Ambrose, Basil Magnus, John of Damascus, Didymus Alexandrinus, 290 
 
Xll PATRISTIC INTERPRETERS. 
 
 I Cor. 10 : 2. 
 
 PAOB 
 
 Paul, . .• . .305 
 
 II Kings 2:8. 
 Origen, Cyril, . 315 
 
 Joshua 3 : 16, 17. 
 Origen, • .... 321 
 
 I Kings 18 : 32-38. 
 Origen, Basil Magnus, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, . . . 828 
 
 APOCETPHA. 
 
 II Maccabees 1 ; 19-36. 
 
 Ambrose, 345 
 
 Judith 12 : 5-9. 
 Septuagint, 352 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT. 
 Hebre-ws 9 : 9, 10. 
 Hilary, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, Gregory Nazi- 
 
 anzen, 
 
 379 
 
c 
 
 ^Q:n^ 
 
 PASSAGES OF SCRIPTUEE Al^D OF THE 
 APOCRYPHA EXAMINED, 
 
 WITH THE PAGE WHERE THEY MAY BE EOUND. 
 
 r«<'" 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 
 PAGE 
 
 Genesis 1 : 2, 
 
 . 134 
 
 Psalm 9:15, 
 
 270 
 
 Genesis 3 : 24, 
 
 . 222 
 
 Psalm 51 : 2, 
 
 187 
 
 Genesis 6 : 13, 
 
 . 148 
 
 Psalm 69 : 1, 
 
 272 
 
 Exodus 12 : 7, 
 
 . 216 
 
 Canticles 5 : 12, . 
 
 274 
 
 Exodus 14 : 19, 
 
 . 290 
 
 Isaiah 1 : 16, 
 
 277 
 
 Exodus 15:23, 
 
 . 143 
 
 Isaiah 4:4, 
 
 248 
 
 Exodus 40 : 30, 
 
 . 175 
 
 Isaiah 6:5, 
 
 239 
 
 Leviticus 14 : 4, 
 
 . 185 
 
 Isaiah 21 : 4, 
 
 284 
 
 Leviticus 15 : 5, 
 
 . 169 
 
 Ezekiel 16 : 4, . 
 
 172 
 
 Joshua 3 : 16, 
 
 . 321 
 
 Ezekiel 36 : 25, . 
 
 196 
 
 Joshua 5 : 3, 
 
 . 207 
 
 John 5:4,. 
 
 164 
 
 I Kings 18 : 32, 
 
 . 328 
 
 I Cor. 10 : 2, 
 
 305 
 
 II Kings 2 : 8, 
 
 . 315 
 
 Hebrews 9:9, 
 
 379 
 
 II Kings 5 : 14, 
 
 . 154 
 
 II Maccabees 1 : 19, 
 
 245 
 
 II Kings 6 : 6, 
 
 . 251 
 
 Judith 12 : 5, . 
 
 352 
 
 Joh 9 : 30, . 
 
 . 269 
 
 Sirach 34 : 30, . 
 
 112 
 
 ( "" ) 
 
AUTHORS AND WORKS QUOTED. 
 
 Ambrose, 
 
 Anastasius, 
 Aristeas, 
 Aristophanes, 
 Aristotle, 
 Aquila, 
 
 Baptist Quarterly, 
 Basil Magnus, 
 Beecher, President, 
 Bekker, 
 Blair, Dr., 
 Bonfrer, 
 Booth, 
 Buxtorf, 
 Calvin, John, 
 Campbell, Principal, 
 Carson, A., LL.D., 
 Christian Press, 
 Chrysostom , 
 Clemens Alexandrinus, 
 Clemens Komanus, 
 Conant, Dr., 
 Cox, Dr., 
 Cyprian, 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria, 
 Cyril of Jerusalem, 
 Dagg, Dr., 
 Didymus, Alex., 
 Donnegan, 
 Erotianus, 
 Eusebius, 
 Ewing, Prof., 
 Examiner and Chronicle, 
 Eairbairn, Principal, 
 Franklin, Dr. Benjamin, 
 Fuller, Dr., 
 ( ^tiv ) 
 
 Fiirst, 
 
 Gale, Dr., 
 
 Gesenius, 
 
 Godwin, Prof., 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen, 
 
 Gregory Thaumaturgus, 
 
 Hamilton, Sir William, 
 
 Halley, President, England, 
 
 Hesiod, 
 
 Hilary, 
 
 Hippocrates, 
 
 Hippolytus, 
 
 Homer, 
 
 Hudson, Principal, Oxford, 
 
 Ingham K., London, 
 
 Irenseus, 
 
 Jerome, 
 
 John of Damascus, 
 
 Josephus, 
 
 Justin Martyr, 
 
 Kames, Lord, 
 
 Kendrick, A. C, D.D., 
 
 Kiihner, 
 
 Lowenthal, Kev., 
 
 Lucian, 
 
 Matthies, 
 
 Mercurialis, 
 
 Migne, Abbe, 
 
 Miller, Eev. Samuel, D.D., 
 
 Milton, 
 
 Morrell, 
 
 National Baptist, 
 
 New Englander, 
 
 Nourry, Alex. D. Le, 
 
 Origen, 
 
 Ovid, 
 
AUTHORS AND WORKS QUOTED. 
 
 XV 
 
 Philo, 
 
 Plato, 
 
 Plutarch, 
 
 Quintillian, 
 
 Eeligious Herald, 
 
 Eipley, Prof., 
 
 Eosenmiiller, 
 
 Scott, Sir Walter, 
 
 Septuagint, 
 
 Shakspeare, 
 
 Son of Sirach, 
 
 Smith, Dr. W., 
 
 Stewart, Kev. Charles, 
 
 Stourdza, Alex, de, 
 
 Struzius, 
 
 Stuart, Professor, 
 
 Symmachus, 
 
 TertuUian, 
 
 Theophylact, 
 
 Tholuck, Professor, 
 
 Valesius, 
 
 Webster, Noah, LL.D., 
 
 Worcester, Sam'l, LL.D., 
 
 Wilkinson, Sir J. Gardner, 
 
 Wilson, Professor, Belfast, 
 
 Williams, Kev. Koger, 
 
 Williams, Dr. Edward, 
 
 Xenophon. 
 
JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 (17) 
 
JUDAIC BAPTISM 
 
 CONSIDERED IN ITS NATUEE AND AS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE 
 USAGE OF 
 
 B A n T I z n. 
 
 Judaic Baptism properly denotes a baptism which is dis- 
 tinctively Jewish. Under this title, however, will be intro- 
 duced all baptisms of whatever kind spoken of by Jewish 
 writers, as well as those facts and observances recorded in the 
 Jewish Scriptures, which are declared by Patristic writers, 
 to be baptisms. 
 
 The Apostle Paul speaks of a baptism connected with the 
 miraculous division and passage of the Red Sea, although 
 there is no such verbal statement in the original narrative. 
 In like manner, the Patrists speak of many facts in the 
 Jewish history and of many ritual observances in the Jewish 
 ceremonial as baptisms, making interpretation not of words 
 but of things. This course of Paul and of Patrist furnishes 
 us with an exceedingly valuable help to determine the mean- 
 ing of the Greek word. To many of the Patrists the Greek 
 language was their native tongue. The use of a Greek word, 
 by them, has equal authority for determining its meaning as 
 its use by Plato or Plutarch. There is, also, this vantage- 
 ground secured in the application of the word to Jewish 
 history and ceremonial, — the facts are thoroughly known, 
 and the nature and mode of the ordinances are minutely de- 
 scribed. Thus we have no blank to fill up by our precon- 
 ceptions or fruitful imaginations. We are fast bound by 
 facts. 
 
 If this field of inquiry has been explored, to any extent, 
 I am not aware of it. While, therefore, it will have some- 
 
 (19) 
 
20 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 what of freshness, it will, I think, be also found to possess 
 a very clear and imperative authority for determining the 
 meaning of this contested word. 
 
 NO DEPARTURE FROM THE RADICAL MEANING. 
 
 This investigation will present no antagonism to the radi- 
 cal meaning of /?a:rr:Tw as developed by Classical usage. On 
 the contrary, we shall sternly and always insist on that mean- 
 ing. The word, carried into the history of God's covenant 
 people, will, indeed, be found in a new atmosphere. And 
 when applied to the pure and purifying rites of revelation, 
 it will be found to assume another coloring from that with 
 which it was invested when found amid the Bacchanalian 
 orgies of heathenism. The radical meaning of the word re- 
 mains the same; the laws of language development remain 
 the same; and the distinctive result, although without ex- 
 emplification amid the utterly alien facts of heathenism, has 
 the most absolute indication in the principles and actual de- 
 velopments of Classical usage. 
 
 It being, then, very foreign from our purpose to lay a new 
 foundation whereon to establish a Judaic meaning for this 
 word, but proposing to stand squarely on that already laid 
 in the Classics, it will be of interest and not without instruc- 
 tion, to learn what Baptist writers think of that foundation. 
 
 Classic Baptism had its severe limitations attached to it, 
 for the purpose of securing the attention of all, and more 
 especially of Baptist scholars, to a single point, — the classical 
 use, and the frank and full expression of sentiment upon it. 
 The result has proved happy, so far as scholars generally are 
 concerned ; but only limitedly as relates to the representa- 
 tives of Baptist sentiment. Among these there has been an 
 unexpected and unwonted reticence. Still, some have spoken, 
 and these sufficiently indicate the course of future sentiment. 
 
 As many have not had the opportunity to see the state- 
 ments of Baptist criticism, who would feel an interest to do 
 so, I will furnish a synopsis of them, as not without value in 
 their bearing on our continued inquiry. 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 21 
 
 BAPTIST CKITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 
 THE CHRISTIAN PRESS. 
 
 The criticisms, first in order of time, are those of " The 
 Christian Press." I give the remarks of this periodical be- 
 cause Baptists may feel a pride in them, although others 
 may be at a loss to know why. This is their tenor : 
 
 1. " The author of the book shows himself to be an igno- 
 ramus, to stand up in the face of scholars and say that the 
 classic meaning of the word is to sprinkle and pour." 
 
 This statement (aside from the " ignoramus " part of it, 
 which every day makes mie feel is too true) bears the most 
 conclusive internal evidence that the writer had never seen 
 even so much as the outside covering of Classic Baptism. 
 He evidently thought with Sydney Smith, that to read a 
 book before criticizing it, was only a hamper to genius. 
 
 2. " Professor Stuart, and men of that class, have published 
 to the world, that the classic use of the word in all cases, and 
 in all places where the Greek word is used, is to immerse, dip, 
 overwhelm." Unwilling to receive the sentiments of my old 
 instructor through this new channel, I turned to Prof. Stuart's 
 treatise, and there found this statement (p. 16), "The words 
 ^dnru) and ^aizTiZu) have, in the Greek classical writers, the 
 sense of dip, plunge, immerge, sink, &c. But there are varia- 
 tions from this prevailing and usual signification." In this 
 statement the meanings of the two verbs are thrown together; 
 the first two belonging to jSaTrrcu, the last two to (iar^riZo). On 
 p. 22, "In all the derived and secondary meanings of these words, 
 it would seem plain, that the Greek writers made a diverse 
 and distinct use, never confounding them." Then, there are 
 "derived and secondary meanings." And on p. 34, "Both 
 the classic use and that of the Septuagint show, that washing 
 and copious affusion are sometimes signified by this word. 
 Consequently, the rite of baptism may have been performed 
 in one of these ways," And now let me ask, whether these 
 extracts do not show that the critic had no more seen Prof. 
 Stuart's treatise than he had seen Classic Baptism ? 
 
22 ^ JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 -3. " Of what auttiority is a mere pastor, whose business it 
 is to preach, and especially one whose life has been spent in 
 a small country village" — 
 
 It was my lot to hear in a Baptist church, a Baptist preacher 
 advocate a Baptist Bible, on this wise : " I argued in the pul- 
 pit of a Baptist minister, not favorable to a new Version, the 
 necessity of a new Translation, because there were words in 
 the old not understood. I quoted, in illustration, 'Jacob 
 sod pottage.' Why, said he, Brother B., I know what that 
 means; I've dug sods many a time! He then pressed his 
 point by appealing to his own case, sa^dng, I was preaching 
 from the text, ^thej that are alive shall not prevent them that 
 sleep,' and having some peculiar views on the resurrection, 
 sustained them by 'prevent' in the sense to hinder. After 
 service a friend said to me, Brother B., ' prevent' dont mean 
 to hinder; but I replied. Think I dont know what prevent 
 means? It does mean to hinder. However, I found out 
 afterward, that prevent does not mean to hinder. So I prove 
 to you we must have a new Version." If these friends of 
 the critic were the kind of men he puffs at, as " mere pastors, 
 whose business is to preach," as it is a family affair, I have 
 nothing to say. 
 
 But as this good writer seems to appreciate only a certain 
 style of evidence, and assured that it will make him look 
 with admiration on Classic Baptism, should he ever have 
 the good fortune to see its cover, I will give him the im- 
 portant information, that the "country village" in which the 
 greater part of the life of its author was spent, contains only 
 something less than a million of souls. 
 
 4. " It is too late in the day for any upstart with his 
 pedantry" — " We sincerely pity any such pretender, and 
 consider the lunatic asylum more befitting for him." "His 
 words are powerless among all scholars, of all names, and 
 his name is branded for the ignorance and audacity which 
 attach to it." . 
 
 So endeth the first criticism of the pedantry, and pretence, 
 and lunacy, and ignorance, and presumption, and audacity, 
 and impudence, of the upstart and ignoramus. 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 23 
 
 The man who writes in this style must look out for the 
 Quaker, who said to the cursing sailor, " That's right, friend, 
 spit it all out ; thee can never go to heaven with such trash 
 on thy stomach." 
 
 THE NATIONAL BAPTIST. 
 
 The tone of this article is, happily, different from that of 
 the preceding. The ignoramus and the upstart, the pedant 
 and pretender, the lunatic and the presumptuous, the auda- 
 cious and the impudent, becomes converted into " an author 
 of no small ability," whose " work is worthy of careful atten- 
 tion," while "the deliberateness and fulness of the investi- 
 gation challenge our admiration." 
 
 1. Embarrassment is expressed at the statement, " that 
 the word immerse expresses not act, but condition. It is a 
 fundamental point with Mr. Dale. "We wish we knew more 
 clearly what he means?" 
 
 It is with the greatest pleasure that I seek to relieve this 
 embarrassment. It arises from an oversight. The position 
 of Classic Baptism is not adequately stated by the language, 
 "Immerse expresses not act, but condition," — much less by 
 the statement, "Immerse is a transitive verb, just as the 
 corresponding Greek word is, and it is sheer nonsense to 
 insist that it signifies only condition." This statement not 
 only represents inadequately the view of Classic Baptism, 
 but so misrepresents it as, indeed, to convert it into " sheer 
 nonsense." I have not the slightest disposition to charge 
 this to the art of the controversialist, but sincerely believe 
 that it is attributable to oversight, however remarkable that 
 oversight may be. In the paragraph but one preceding this 
 statement, the reviewer quotes this definition: "Baptizo, 
 in primary use, expresses condition, characterized by com- 
 plete intusposition, without expressing, and with absolute in- 
 difference to the form of the act by which such intusposition 
 may be effected, as, also, without other limitations." Surely 
 there is nothing in this definition which " signifies only con- 
 dition." There is act in the verb, but the form of the act is 
 
24 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 not expressed, while the condition, effected by the implied act, 
 is directly expressed. 
 
 Take a parallel word — '•'■Envelop the package." The com- 
 mand expresses no form of act ; it implies act, while express- 
 ing a condition of covering in which the package is to be 
 put. Envelop, like merse, expresses condition, while the 
 form of the act involved is unexpressed. 
 
 This, I am sure, the reviewer will not consider " sheer 
 nonsense ;" nor will he feel at liberty to say, " Mr. Dale as- 
 sures us, that here is a transitive verb which does not and 
 cannot express action, but only condition." 
 
 2. " Mr. Dale frequently implies, and in more than one in- 
 stance expresses, a conviction that Baptist writers on this 
 subject are not honest." 
 
 This charge is not a matter of indifference to me. It is 
 very j^inful. I hold the flinging of such charges into the 
 faces of Christian opponents in contemptuous abhorrence. 
 If they appeared in Classic Baptism I would blush to own it 
 as any production of mine. Such utterances betoken weak- 
 ness and wickedness. When I have to resort to them I will 
 stop writing. 
 
 3. " Mr. Dale puts a new meaning on the word immerse, 
 and refuses to receive the meaning which dictionaries and 
 all English literature assign to it." 
 
 No meaning, new or old, has been put on " immerse." 
 Report has been made of that meaning put on it by " all 
 English literature." Courts of law require, that the best 
 evidence within reach shall be adduced to sustain any cause 
 brought before them, under peril of the conclusion, that if 
 adduced it would be unfavorable. The best evidence within 
 reach, or which can exist, has been adduced, — the usage of 
 accredited writers. If this is not accepted, let it be rebutted 
 by testimony of equal authority. 
 
 4. The reviewer thinks it disingenuous to say, " In this 
 definition, by the use of 'to put' — 'put into or under' — Dr. 
 Conant gives a greater breadth and freedom to baptize than 
 any of his friends who have preceded him. They have in- 
 sisted that it meant to dip, to plunge, and nothing else. Dr. 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 25 
 
 Conant says, {in this definition hy the use of put — put into or 
 under,) " it no more means to dip, to plunge, than does to put; 
 that is, it means no such thing." He asks, "Is this fair 
 and honorable dealing ? Does Dr. Conant say, ' It no more 
 means to dip, to plunge, than does to put?' " 
 
 This statement is so plain and so obviously true, that it is 
 hard to imagine how the idea of " disingenuousness " has 
 arisen in the mind of this respected reviewer. If ^oKriZu) 
 has a meaning so broad as to be faithfully represented by 
 "put into or under," then, it is simply impossible that it can 
 have the narrow modal meaning " to dip, to plunge, and 
 nothing else." And, thus, Dr. C. says, (by his definition,) 
 "that the word no more means to dip, to plunge, than does 
 to put." 
 
 5. After some general remarks, to show that dip and im 
 merse are equivalents, the reviewer answers himself by say- 
 ing, " We are free to say that Mr. Dale's labors cannot be 
 worthless or unimportant. He has examined the passages 
 in Greek classical authors and classified them, and has es- 
 tablished a difference in use between fidTzrw and ^anrH^ai. 
 His statement of that difference seems to us defective, but 
 that there is a difference is evident. He has, also, brought 
 clearly out what our own examination had before proved, 
 that the word ^aitriZio does not of itself involve the lifting 
 out from the fluid of that which is put in. In other words, 
 that it is in that respect exactly equivalent to the English 
 word immerse." 
 
 But if immerse never takes its object out, and dip always 
 takes its object out, how is it possible that they can be 
 "equivalent?" The Baptist view of the word, as heretofore 
 advocated, is not only seriously but fatally erroneous. 
 
 EXAMINER AND CHRONICLE. 
 
 The critical complaint of this periodical is made on the 
 ground of a lack of submission to dictionaries. 
 
 1. " This interchanging of the words dip and plunge and 
 immerse is the common and established use of the words. 
 
26 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 The author himself is the transgressor. Standard lexicog- 
 raphers use them to define each other." 
 
 To go back to dictionaries in this discussion is to go back 
 to a battle-ground that has been fought over a thousand 
 times without beneficial result. 
 
 The critic gives the definition of Webster, "To dip. To 
 plunge or immerse for a moment or short time." And that 
 of Worcester, "To dip. To immerse; to plunge into any 
 liquid." Who, now, shall be umpire between Webster, who 
 says momentary continuance belongs to this act, and Wor- 
 cester, who says nothing of any such element? 
 
 He, also, gives Webster, " Immerse. To put under water 
 ot other fluid; to plunge, to dip," and Worcester, "Immerse. 
 To put under water or other fluid ; to plunge into, to im- 
 •merge, to overwhelm, to dip." 
 
 Suppose, now, I take the general definition, in which, 
 there is no form of act and no limitation of time, and insist 
 upon that as the true meaning; while some one else seizes 
 on a particular defining word, dip, for example, in which 
 there is both definite form and limited duration, and insists 
 upon that as the true exposition ; who shall decide ? 
 
 Is it not most unreasonable to turn from an inquiry into 
 the meaning of a word, by exhausting the cases of its use, 
 to dictionaries, among whose tens of thousands of words per- 
 haps not one has had its meaning so determined? It is only 
 surprising that dictionaries have that general correctness 
 which they do possess. 
 
 Controversial writers who would accurately define the 
 meanings of single words, can never do their work by enter- 
 ing into the labors of the general lexicographer. Baptists 
 have defined the word in question with the severest limita- 
 tions. And when the supreme authority of usage is shown 
 to condemn such definition, a cry for help is made upon 
 lexicographers. 
 
 The statement that dip, and plunge, and immerse, as ex- 
 pressing the same idea, are interchanged in critical, or any 
 other rational writings, is most incorrect. There is such an 
 interchange in Baptist writings, and too much in all writings 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OP CLASSIC BAPTISM. 27 
 
 on the subject of baptism. But there is a special reason for 
 this. It is found, mainly, in the original confounding to- 
 gether of pdizTcj and ^arM^u) as absolute equivalents. Thus 
 dipping, and dyeings and plunging, and mersing, formed an 
 undivided common heritage. When dyeing was claimed, 
 and surrendered, as exclusive property, dip was still left in 
 common. Demand is now made for it as the sole property 
 of ^dnro). When this demand is met, the partnership be- 
 tween these words will be thoroughly dissolved, and ^ar^ri^u) 
 will take its place among that class of verbs to which it be- 
 longs, and the mixing up of a definite act of momentary con- 
 tinuance, and of a condition unlimited in continuance, will 
 come to an end. Having tasted of the good wine, we cannot 
 go back to the worse. 
 
 2. In a second article this periodical adduces a second 
 objection, which is regarded as of sufficient importance to 
 engross the entire article. It is directed against the final 
 summary statement, and is presented as follows: 
 
 " We have reviewed the Rev. Mr. Dale's book, but we 
 refer to it again. The conclusion is this: 'Whatever is capa- 
 ble of changing the character, state, or condition of any ob- 
 ject, is capable of baptizing that object; and by such change 
 of character, state, or condition, does in fact baptize it.' 
 
 " A definition is usually made more clear and forcible by 
 examples. The first illustration that occurs to us after read- 
 ing this definition, is the baptism of gunpowder by a match. 
 How thoroughly the condition of the powder is changed in 
 that case ! Was it the Emancipation Proclamation of Mr. 
 Lincoln, or was it the surrender of Lee, that baptized 
 millions of negroes from chattels into freemen ? What a 
 famous baptizer the stomach is? How thoroughly it changes 
 the character and condition of meat, fruits, and vegetables! 
 Some baptisms are very gradual. How long it takes, for 
 instance, to baptize an acorn into an oak ! The baptism 
 of fire — how plain and pregnant that expression becomes, 
 in the light of Mr. Dale's definition ! Yes, fire is a great 
 baptizer. It baptizes water into steam, dough into bread, 
 wood and coal into ashes and smoke. Oar fire-places, and 
 
28 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 stoves, and furnaces, what are they but baptisteries? Our 
 great factories, what unwearied and efficient administrators 
 of baptism they are ! What quantities of wool or cotton 
 they baptize into cloth every day! Our chemists and apothe- 
 caries, too, what expeditious and thorough baptizers they 
 are!" 
 
 The Examiner, no doubt, believes that there is substantial 
 logic under this dash of wit and ridicule, or it would not 
 have put it into type. Classic Baptism must be prepared to 
 stand fire, even though it be " wild fire," which any one 
 may choose to direct against it. Any assault, within the 
 limits of goodbreeding, whether under the mask of Comus 
 or with the open and frowning front of Tragedy, will receive 
 both toleration and welcome from its author. 
 
 It is, also, obvious, that "the conclusion" must be shown 
 to be invulnerable to assaults of every character. This is 
 the more important because the aspect of baptism therein 
 presented is not familiar, and, consequently, forms of 
 thought not heretofore regarded as baptisms, or as capable 
 of being thrown into such a form, might be received with 
 embarrassment or be entirely rejected. I will, therefore, 
 resist the temptation to " answer the unwise according to 
 their unwisdom," and will give a sober reply to these sug- 
 gestions of the Examiner. 
 
 1. As to the gunpowder baptism. In so far as this may 
 be sp^oken of as a baptism, at all, it is nothing more nor less 
 than martyr baptism by fire. The flesh and bones of a 
 "witness" for Jesus subjected to the influence of fire are 
 changed into ashes. Gunpowder subjected to the influence 
 of fire is changed into sulphurous vapor. The baptisms are 
 not distinctively the same. Martyr fire effects not merely 
 a destructive baptism, but also, a purifying baptism. A 
 lighted match eflfects only a destructive baptism. 
 
 2. Baptism into freedom. The Examiner ought to be 
 familiar with the historical baptisms of bondsmen, "in the 
 name of a freeman," when about to be released from slavery. 
 And I hope that, before long, it will also understand, that 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 29 
 
 the millions of Israel were by the proclamation of Jehovah, 
 and the issue of the struggle of the Egyptian hosts in the 
 rushing sea waters, baptized, from a condition of bondage 
 to Pharaoh, into a condition of freedom-subjection to Moses. 
 8. " What a baptizer the stomach is 1" Yes, even beyond 
 what the wit of the Examiner has discovered. (1.) The 
 stomach baptizes pork and cabbage (as the receptacle down 
 into which they are swallowed), as the ship and her crew are 
 baptized, swallowed up, by the gaping mouth of old ocean. 
 This baptism the Examiner does not like ; it lasts too long. 
 (2.) The stomach baptizes its contents by thoroughly chang- 
 ing their condition through its peculiar influences, just as 
 ocean by its briny waters disintegrates the oaken timber and 
 iron bolts of the ship, as well as the flesh and bones of her 
 hapless crew. (3.) The stomach, when it fails to baptize 
 pork and cabbage, baptizes the body and the mind through 
 this leaden burden which it carries. It is of escape from 
 this baptism through the stomach, Plutarch says, " A great 
 resource truly for a pleasant day is a good temperament of 
 the body unbaptized and unburdened." (Classic B., p. 338.) 
 Is there more here of stomachic baptism than the Examiner 
 bargained for? " "What a famous baptizer the stomach is !" 
 
 4. Acorn baptism. " How long it takes to baptize an 
 acorn into an oak!" Yes, quite long; yet not near so long 
 as to baptize " all nations." The Examiner will not deny 
 that a burial is a baptism. An acorn buried in the ground 
 is baptized, then. How long does this baptism last? The 
 burial baptism of the acorn brings with it sweet influences 
 from earth and air and sky, by which it receives a baptism 
 into life, whose new condition is the oak. After all, this 
 baptism is not so funny. 
 
 5. " Fire is a great baptizer." A very true statement, 
 and one of which the Examiner will hear more, if Judaic 
 Baptism should be read. Baptism by any influence imports 
 
 \ the subjection of the baptized object to the full controlling 
 power of that influence. " There are some things which 
 exert over certain objects a definite and unvarying influence. 
 Whenever, therefore, ^aizriZu) is used to express the relation 
 
30 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 between such agencies and their objects, it gives develop- 
 ment in the comj)letesi manner to that specific influence." (C. 
 B,, p. 316.) The specific influences of fire are : 1. A power 
 to destroy. 2. A power to purify. 
 
 When fire is used to bake bread, or to boil the kettle, it 
 is used for the development of neither of these influences. 
 They are not, therefore, cases of baptism. Where fire is 
 used to consume fuel, it is inappropriate to speak of it as a 
 case of baptism by fire, because the object is not to destroy 
 the fuel, but to give warmth to those around it. But if any 
 one chooses to set his woods, or his house, or his bonds and 
 mortgages, on fire, he will secure what the classics would 
 thoroughly understand by a baptism of fire. 
 
 It is a blundering use of language, however, to say that 
 the object burned is " baptized into ashes." There is neither 
 truth nor sense in saying, that a burned object is "baptized 
 into ashes." " Ashes" constitute the object itself in another 
 form. You cannot put a thing into itself. The proper ex- 
 pression is, as everywhere through the Classics, baptized hy 
 fire. This carries its own explanation with it. If it is a 
 combustible body, then we know that it is destroyed. If it 
 is a metallic ore, then we know that it is purified from its 
 dross. If it is the "impure lips" of Isaiah, then we know 
 that they are purified from defilement. "Eire is a great 
 baptizer." 
 
 6. "Our fire-places, and stoves, and furnaces, what are 
 they all but baptisteries?" But the Examiner is superficial 
 in his examination. Why not complete the catalogue? Let 
 me help the critic by authority more unquestionable than 
 that which has furnished the fire-place, stove, and furnace 
 baptistery. 
 
 What are our grog-shops, with their bad whisky, but bap- 
 tisteries ? (C. B., pp. 289, 319.) What are our eating-houses, 
 with tough beef and half-baked pastry, but baptisteries ? 
 (C. B,, p. 338.) What are our apothecary-shops, with their 
 soporifics, and sedatives, and stimulants, but baptisteries? 
 (C. B., p. 318.) What are our pest-houses, reeking with 
 malaria, but baptisteries? (C. B., p. 304.) What are our 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 31 
 
 fortune-telling establishments, with their lying arts, but bap- 
 tisteries? (C. 'B.,idem.) "What are our schools, that "cram" 
 the brain of childhood, but baptisteries? (C. B., p. 308.) 
 What are our college-halls, where hard questions "stump" 
 the modest and "flunk" the Freshman, but baptisteries? 
 
 (C. B., p. 334.) What ^^ Tene manum," do you say? 
 
 Well, be it so, we will leave the catalogue incomplete; only 
 adding, when the theory of water dipping shall have brought 
 itself into harmony with these classic baptisteries, "the con- 
 clusion " will take care of those of the " fire-place, the stove, 
 and the furnace." 
 
 7. " Our great factories — Lowell, Lawrence, and Manches- 
 ter — what baptizers!" These great establishmeuts use alto- 
 gether too "much water" for Classic Baptism to run them. 
 If the Examiner will put on sufiiciently good glasses he will 
 see, that the conversion of cotton and wool, by machinery, 
 into sheeting and broadcloth, neither changes the condition 
 of its object by putting it within a physical element, nor does 
 its work by an infiuence. They, therefore, do not belong to 
 us. We remand these machinery Baptists back to the Ex- 
 aminer's office. 
 
 In a third article, the Examiner makes a draft for its criti- 
 cisms upon 
 
 THE NEW ENGLANDER, 
 
 The first quotation has reference to figurative use. 
 
 1. " The Greek word is used in many cases where there 
 is no literal physical submergence. Mr. Dale has not over- 
 looked these uses; he gives them a great deal of attention; 
 but it is much to be regretted, and it is the great defect of 
 the book, that his treatment of them is, in important respects, 
 unnatural and arbitrary. It may be difficult to determine, in 
 some cases, whether the primary meaning is wholly lost in 
 the secondary, or whether something of the former remains 
 to give picturesqueness and vivacity to the latter. But very 
 few, we think, will agree with the author of this work in the 
 extent to which he assumes a complete obliteration of pri- 
 mary meaning and a consequent loss of figurative character." 
 
32 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 I have no novelties to offer on the subject of ligurative 
 language. I do not speak ex cathedra, but will take my place 
 at the feet .of any one who will give me instruction. The 
 subject has its difficulties, as any one will feel who reflects 
 upon it, or who will read those who have done so. But, as 
 to this critic, there seems to be no principle separating us. 
 It is a question of "extent" only. And if this be "the 
 greatest defect of the book," then it will answer very well 
 the purpose for which it was written. 
 
 The principles which have governed my interpretation of 
 language not used in physical relations, have been mainly 
 these : 
 
 1. Familiar and long-continued use wears out the original 
 physical allusion. 
 
 2. Where there is no evidence that the writer has the 
 physical application in his mind, and a meaning is promptly 
 and clearly attained without any such reference, that mean- 
 ing should be regarded not as borrowed, but as its own ; not 
 as figurative, but as literal, secondary. 
 
 3. Long absolute use of a word, in like connection, com- 
 municates to that word a specific meaning growing out of 
 such relations. 
 
 These principles are neither singular nor questionable. 
 Campbell, the Principal of Marischal College, and regarded 
 by Dr. Carson as the Prince of Rhetoricians, says : "And as 
 to ordinary metaphors, or those which have already received 
 the public sanction, and which are commonly very numerous 
 in every tongue, the metaphorical meaning comes to be as 
 really ascertained by custom in the particular language, as 
 the original, or what is called the literal, meaning of the 
 word. . . . One plain consequence of this doctrine is, that 
 there will be in many words a transition, more or less rapid, 
 from their being the figurative, to their being the proper 
 signs of certain ideas. The transition from the figurative 
 to the proper, in regard to such terms as are in daily use, is 
 indeed inevitable. . . . They cannot be considered as genuine 
 metaphors by the rhetorician. I have already assigned the 
 reason. They have nothing of the effect of metaphor upon 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 3d 
 
 the hearer. On the contrary, like proper terms, they suggest 
 directly to his mind, without the intervention of any image, 
 the ideas which the speaker proposed to convey by them." 
 
 Allow me to call especial attention to the following state- 
 ment: "Again, it ought to be considered, that many words 
 which must appear as tropical to a learner of a distant age, 
 who acquires the language by the help of grammars and dic- 
 tionaries, may, through the imperceptible influence of use, 
 have totally lost that appearance to the natives, who con- 
 sidered them purely as proper terms." — Philosophy of Bhet, 
 iii, 1. 
 
 In writing Classic Baptism, I had not looked into Camp- 
 bell ; but the views here presented are the same which rule 
 there. I am not aware that they differ from other accredited 
 writers. 
 
 Dr. Carson has written a Treatise on the Figures of Speech, 
 to supply " a deficiency in our language to this day." In 
 that work he can find no writer, from Quintillian to Blair, 
 to satisfy him as to the definition of Figure. E'or does he 
 know any " author, ancient or modern, that has, with philo- 
 sophical accuracy, drawn a line of distinction between the 
 territories of common expression and those of figurative 
 language." In his conception of metaphor, he declares his 
 rejection of "the doctrine of Quintillian, Lord Kames, Dr. 
 Campbell, and Dr. Blair." These writers all agree in the 
 definition given by the Roman, — "Metaphor is a shorter 
 similitude." Carson says, " Metaphor always asserts what 
 is manifestly false. Metaphor asserts not only a falsehood, 
 but an absurdity, — that one object is another." He insists 
 upon it, that not a comparison, but a naked declaration, is 
 made in the statement, "Achilles is a lion." He admits 
 likeness to be the ground of the statement, and, therefore, 
 objects to the metaphor, " Steep me in poverty to the very 
 lips," saying, "It is here supposed that there is a likeness 
 between being in great poverty and being steeped in water. 
 We cannot say that the likeness is faint, for there is no like- 
 ness at all." Dr. Carson's peculiar ideas led him to put the 
 
 3 
 
34 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 man spoken of, in vxder to the lips ; which being done, he 
 found no ground for the figure. And no wonder, for the 
 figure is designed to develop the influence of 'poverty to a 
 degree which shall be only short of destroying life, and to 
 put a man in water to the lips produces no evil influence; 
 but if you will put any absorbent into a liquid until it shall 
 become, with a small exception, penetrated by its peculiari- 
 ties, you will have the basis of the figure. We, then, come 
 back to the man and poverty, and interpret the language as 
 expressive of the influences of poverty in an extreme degree. 
 For the same reason, Dr. C. carries a man baptized by ques- 
 tions, or by sleep, or by wizard arts, into the water, with which 
 such a one has nothing to do ; but the language is grounded 
 in the resemblance of influence which may be found, not 
 between the man beioildered, sleepy, or possessed with the devil, 
 and a man under water, but between such a one as to the 
 controlling influence to which he is subjected, and any ob- 
 ject under the influence of a liquid by mersion. 
 
 Against such interpretations of metaphor Classic Baptism 
 protests. And it may be that it is the unreserved rejection 
 of this " Achilles is a lion " metaphor, introducing ever more 
 picture figures of dipping men, and cities, and continents, 
 into water, which the New Englander has unwittingly termed 
 " unnatural and arbitrary." 
 
 I have spoken to this criticism, because while it is not 
 essential to the issue, yet it has its interest and importance. 
 . I only add a word as to the " extent" to which the denial 
 of figure is carried. 1. It embraces a single class of phrases 
 in which a grammatical form (the dative without a preposi- 
 tion), not found in the other class of baptisms, expresses 
 agency, and in which there is no direct or incidental evi- 
 dence of a physical scene beiug present to the mind of the 
 writer. 2. The absolute use of the word in the same re- 
 peated connection. This is the " extent" of my ofifending, 
 no more. And a thorough examination of the merits of the 
 case will, I think, make that extent a vanishing quantity. 
 
 2. The Examiner introduces a second criticism from this 
 periodical thus: " Remarking on the assertion that any 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 35 
 
 thorough change of condition is a baptism, the reviewer ob- 
 serves"—- 
 
 Allow me to observe, that this statement makes a perfect 
 metamorphosis of the statement of Classic Baptism. It does 
 not say that " any thorough change of condition is a bap- 
 tism," but, "Whatever" (act or influence) "is capable of 
 thoroughly changing the character, state, or condition of any 
 object^ is capable of baptizing that object," (according to the 
 nature of the case, if an " act," by putting it into the new 
 condition of intusposition, with or without influence, or, if 
 an " influence," by assimilating its condition to itself by a 
 controlling power.) 
 
 " Thorough change of condition" is a genus, with its 
 species and their individuals. Classic Baptism does not treat 
 of the genus, but of species, two, to wit, 1. Such thorough 
 change of condition as results from the intusposition of ob- 
 jects within physical elements; and, 2. Such thorough change 
 of condition as results from a controlling assimilative influ- 
 ence. Wine, opiate, grief, debt, excessive study, &c., &c., 
 controlling the conditions of their objects, so as to bring 
 them into a new condition, assimilated to their several in- 
 fluences. 
 
 The two statements, " an^/ thorough change of condition," 
 and the thorough change of condition of ^^ a.ny object " needs 
 but to be made in order that their utter diversity may be ap- 
 prehended. 
 
 But it is this transference (inadvertent no doubt) of " any," 
 from its true connection with. " objects," to a false connec- 
 tion with " condition," which makes the foundation for the 
 "funny" baptism of the Examiner, and the erroneously con- 
 ceived baptism of the ISTew Englander, now to be noticed. 
 
 " He does not say, that a surgeon, who by a successful 
 amputation saves a dying patient, baptizes that patient ; or 
 that a whetstone, when it makes a dull knife into a sharp 
 one, baptizes the knife; or that the sun, when it dries up a 
 stream in summer, baptizes the stream. But we are left to 
 suppose that he would regard these and others like these, as 
 natural and appropriate expressions." 
 
36 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 If left, heretofore, to such inference, let me try to place an 
 effectual guard against it hereafter. 
 
 After what has been already said, this, perhaps, can be 
 best done by a case. A man having a child sick with some 
 internal disease, falls on a medical work treating on this sub- 
 ject, and presenting this conclusion : " A sovereign remedy 
 for this disease, is a thorough drenching with oil and rhu- 
 barb. If restive under the application, he must be quieted by 
 tightly twisting the upper lip and nose." Having read " the 
 conclusion," and thus diplomatized for practice, he prepares 
 a bucketful of the mixture, and at the bedside of his child 
 prepares to " drench " him from head to foot. His restiveness 
 is stilled by a tourniquet for lip and nose, but not without 
 outcry. A passer by looks in, to whom the scene is ex- 
 pounded through the disease and " the conclusion." The 
 newcomer turns over the volume and exclaims, " Why, this 
 book treats of the diseases of horses ! And it says, that ' to 
 drench^ is to empty a bottleof the stuff down a horse's throat !' " 
 [Exeunt omnes.) 
 
 If now the Examiner and the New Englander had not hur- 
 ried into practice on a hasty preparation from " the conclu- 
 sion," but had taken a full course of reading in the volume, 
 they would have discovered, if not that " drench " is double- 
 faced, yet, that " character, state, or condition," is more than 
 bi-frons, and would have felt it desirable to conform their 
 professional practice to that aspect presented in the book, 
 and not have concluded that " he " meant child, instead of 
 horse, and "drench" meant a dash of a bucketful of the 
 mixture, instead of the swallowing of a cathartic. 
 
 If the machinery of Lowell, or the whetstone, or the knife 
 of "the universal whittler" can put forth an "act" intro- 
 ducing its object into a fluid element, then it can perform a 
 baptism of the first class, changing condition by intusposition 
 with or without influence; or, if they are able to send forth 
 "influences" which shall pervade a bale of wool, a mower's 
 scythe, or a bit of shingle, thereby controlling or assimila- 
 ting them to their own nature, then they can perform bap- 
 tisms of the second class, changing condition by influence. 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 37 
 
 " But all this is not stated in ' the conclusion.' " No more 
 is horse stated in " the conclusion," and yet "he" is there. 
 And, so, all this, and a great deal more, is in " the conclu- 
 sion," for the Examiner, says, " It is the conclusion of 354 
 pages of critical discussion." There are three hundred and 
 iifty-four pages in " the conclusion." 
 
 3. The Examiner says, " still more :" and quotes : " The 
 English word immerse, according to our author, has nearly 
 the same primary meaning as the Greek ^a-Krif^w^ and it ex- 
 presses, as Mr. Dale says, 'thorough influence of any kind.'" 
 Let the reader observe the Avords, " of any kind,'' and say 
 whether we are not authorized to affirm, that " whatever is 
 capable of thoroughly changing the character, state, or con- 
 dition of any object, is capable oiimmersing ihsii object; and 
 by such change of character, state, or condition, does in fact 
 immerse it." We do not see how this conclusion is to be 
 avoided, though we fear the Baptist enemy may take ad- 
 vantage of it to murmur with the little breath our author 
 has left him : " Baptizing, then, is immersing, and immersing 
 is baptizing." 
 
 When I read the statement, " Mr. Dale says immerse ex- 
 presses influence of any kind. Let the reader observe 
 the words of any kind," I said to myself, Well, you have 
 nodded here, if not in the conclusion, and prepared myself 
 to confess, with as good a grace as might be, a slip in the too 
 great breadth of the language. However, on turning to C. 
 B., p. 212, 1 read, " It expresses thorough influence of any kind ; 
 the nature determined by the adjunct." I, then, smiled at my 
 fears and sighed over the unreliability of quotations. And 
 it becomes my turn to say, " Let the reader observe the 
 words," the nature determined by the adjunct. Does not this 
 limit, in the sharpest manner, " any kind of influence ?" It 
 can develop no kind of influence, but that which belongs to 
 its "adjunct." And it can have no "adjunct" but what use 
 attaches to it. And use can attach no adjunct to it, but such 
 as may receive appropriate development through the word. 
 
 Suppose we laugh at use, and take some of the " funny" 
 
38 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 adjuncts to which we have been just introduced, and see how 
 the " any kind" of influence is developed. " A dull knife 
 immersed in a whetstone becomes very sharp." " A dying man 
 immersed in a surgeon's scalpel springs into life." "A summer 
 pool immersed in solar beams scuds through the sky." " A 
 bag of wool immersed in a p)ower-loom is influenced into broad- 
 cloth !" Whetstones, scalpels, «fec., &c., are "funny" adjuncts 
 
 of ^anrc^cu. 
 
 I believe the statement may stand without the need of 
 pleading for grace. Immerse must have a fit adjunct, and 
 the adjunct determines the nature of the influence. 
 
 It is farther to be observed, that the inference from the 
 fact, that because immerse passes through the same general 
 phases of usage, with ^anTc^w, it must, therefore, have the same 
 specific meanings, is not well grounded. 
 
 Immerse has meanings which the Greek word has not; 
 and the Greek word has meanings which immerse has not. 
 
 The grammatical combinations of the two words diflfer. 
 In secondary use, immerse in is the almost invariable form ; 
 while in secondary use, baioiize by, is, so far as I remember, 
 the absolutely invariable form. This diversity of form is 
 indicative of diversity both of conception and of meaning. 
 The difference of conception is ingrained in the terms. The 
 difference of meaning is, sometimes, most obvious. " Jm- 
 merscd in business" indicates active, earnest, and constant 
 engagement in business pursuits ; while " baptized by busi- 
 ness" indicates an embarrassed condition resulting from mul- 
 tiplied engagements. '■'■Immersed, in study " indicates thorough 
 engagedness in student life; while " bajjtized by study" indi- 
 cates mental prostration as the resultant condition of study. 
 The inference, therefore, of the entire sameness of these 
 words is not correct. 
 
 But on the supposition that these words were fac similes 
 in meaning, it would hardly be worth while for "the enemy" 
 to waste their " spent breath " in saying, " immersing is bap- 
 tizing and baptizing is immersing," inasmuch as " immers- 
 ing" must first have secured all the meanings shown by 
 Classic Baptism to belong to baptizing, in which case the 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 89 
 
 hard breathing would be wasted on the tautology, "baptizing 
 is baptizing, and baptizing is baptizing." 
 
 We cheerfully make over to "the Baptist enemy," (espe- 
 cially as we have not heretofore had much opportunity to 
 show them favor,) all right, title, and privilege, which may 
 appertain to this discovery. 
 
 THE RELIGIOUS HERALD. 
 
 The book has been reviewed by the Religious Herald, in 
 four consecutive numbers, embracing nine columns. I am 
 indebted to its editors for the privilege of reading those 
 articles, and it is with no ordinary pleasure that I say, that 
 there is no discourteous word in those nine columns. They 
 do not intimate that they have found any such word in Clas- 
 sic Baptism. I have no such words for Christian brethren. 
 With those who use them, I wish to have nothing to do. If 
 there are any whose errors need such chastening, I turn them 
 over to the discipline of others. 
 
 The Herald " declines to discuss the meaning oi ^amiZu) as 
 to its discriminating meaning, but limits itself to the argu- 
 menium ad hominem and reduciio ad absurdum." Any weapon, 
 undipped in poisonous bile, which an opponent thinks best 
 adapted to his purpose, is welcome to the lists. 
 
 1. The Herald says, " Baptist writers have maintained, in 
 common with the most jdistinguished lexicographers and 
 critics, that fianril^u) signifies dip, plunge, or immerse; that it is 
 a modal term, denoting a specific act, and not an effect re- 
 sulting from an act : that it has the same meaning as fidnrut, 
 except that of dge or smear." 
 
 To sustain the lexicographical part of this statement, it is 
 said, "Donnegan defines it: To immerse repeatedly into a 
 liquid; to submerge, to soak thoroughly, to saturate; hence 
 to drench with wine, meiaphoricallg to confound totally." 
 
 Does the Herald, in its gentle courtesy, mean that in ex- 
 changing friendly buffets, we should, like Friar Tuck and 
 Richard, take turn about, and therefore quote this definition 
 to give me, too, a chance for the argumentam ad hominem? 
 
40 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 The Herald says, through Donnegan, that ^oKri^u) means 
 *' to submerge," in which there is no modal act; yet it says 
 in proper person, it does mean " a modal act;" how is this? 
 The Herald says, through Donnegan, /Janrtt*" means "to soak 
 thoroughly," in which there is no specific act; yet it says in 
 proper person, it does mean "a specific act;" how is this? 
 The Herald says, through Donnegan, ^ar^ziZut means "to satu- 
 rate," which expresses not an act, but an effect resulting 
 from an act; yet it says in proper person, it does mean "an 
 act, and not an effect proceeding from an act;" how is this? 
 
 Was the Herald napping when it wandered into the land 
 of 1 exicography ? 
 
 Besides, Donnegan says, /Sarrn^o; means, liierally, " to drench 
 with wine," (to make drunk), and also, literally, in secondary 
 (metaphorical) use, "to confound totally." 
 
 If a more suicidal blow was ever given to any cause than 
 is given to the Baptist theory by the proffer of this defini- 
 tion, I cannot conceive when, or where, or how, it was done. 
 
 This definition suggests the farther remark: to look to 
 dictionaries as authority to settle this controversy is foll}^ 
 
 Will the Herald, or the Baptist world, accept the very first 
 (which ought to be the very best) definition given by this, 
 undoubtedly learned, lexicographer, to wit: "To immerse 
 repeatedly into a liquid?" This definition, in common with 
 other errors, as to the meaning of this word, is now rejected 
 by scholars of every name. Plow, idle the complaint, then, 
 that Classic Baptism is not filled with lexicons. 
 
 But Classic Baptism has not refused to consider lexical 
 definitions because they were inimical. It is far otherwise. 
 
 Every position of Classic Baptism can be deduced from this 
 definition of Doiniegan. 1. It utterly rejects modal act as 
 the meaning of the word. 2. It shows, in the most absolute 
 manner, the meaning to be, a condition effected by an un- 
 expressed act. 3. Further, it sustains the distinctions made: 
 (1.) "Intusposition without influence." This is done by the 
 naked submerge. (2.) " Intusposition with influence." This 
 is expressed by ifo saturate. (3.) " Intusposition for influence." 
 This is evidently in to soak thoroughly. (4.) " Influence with- 
 
BAPTIST CllITICISMS OP CLASSIC BAPTISM. 41 
 
 out intusposition." This is, as clearly, in to drench (make 
 drunk) with wine. And (5.) " Influence without intusposition, 
 in the case of elements not physical." This is exemplified 
 by a particular case, to confound totally ; which is undoubtedly 
 derived from the case of the youth mentioned in Classic 
 Baptism (p. 334), who was baptized, bewildered, " totally 
 confounded " by questions. Donnegan and Classic Baptism 
 are in full accord. It is most unaccountable that any one 
 should say, that the Baptist theory of this word and lexical 
 'definitions agree together. And it is no less groundless to 
 say, that *'the views of Classic Baptism are not less opposed 
 to those of lexicographers than they are opposed to those of 
 Baptists." 
 
 But the special reason for this quotation from the Herald, 
 is, that the views held by Baptists as to the meaning of this 
 word, (" one meaning, modal term, specific act, same as ^d-nrw, 
 dyeing excepted,") may be before us on the high authority 
 of the Herald ; for respondents are already beginning to deny 
 that such views are held by our Baptist friends. They feel 
 their old ground slipping from under them, and they are 
 casting about for some surer resting-place. 
 
 2. The argumentum ad hominem. — This is not formally stated, 
 but we are left to conclude, from a supposed warrant in the 
 exhibited use of immerse, that this word has only a literal, 
 primary meaning, and from its (supposed) stated relation to 
 baptize, farther to conclude, that baptize has but one, literal, 
 primary meaning throughout its usage. 
 
 I would like to state the case in all its strength, but, really, 
 when I attempt to raise it out of the types, it so falls to pieces 
 that I am embarrassed. 
 
 " Mr. Dale gives numerous instances of the figurative use 
 of baptize — ' baptized by evils, by anger, by misfortune, by 
 wine, by taxes, by midnight, &c.' — In these passages there 
 is not a new meaning assigned to the word, but simply a 
 figurative use of the term, in which it derives all its perti- 
 nency and force from the literal and well-known import. . . . 
 Baptize and immerse are similar terms. Every child knows 
 
42 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 that immerse means to put into or under a fluid, and it is im- 
 possible by any sophistry or figurative meanings to blind his 
 understanding on the subject. The same sophistry which 
 shows that baptism, mersion, may be efi'ected" (in unphysi- 
 cal matters) " without putting under a fluid, would show that 
 immersion may be effected " (in unphysical matters) " with- 
 out putting under a fluid; while every man, woman, and 
 child in the land, knows immersion means to put under 
 fluid," (in physical elements.) 
 
 The language of the Herald is given in a condensed form, 
 and the enclosed words are introduced in order to show, that 
 the reasoning breaks down through the admixture of things 
 unphysical and physical. 
 
 To show that " immerse undergoes no change of meaning," 
 the following extracts from Classic Baptism are made : 
 
 " ' The Secretary of War is immersed in business ; immersed 
 in traffic; immersed in calculations ; immersed in politics; 
 immersed among worm-eaten folios;' — in these passages the 
 word immerse does not change its meaning. It has reference, 
 in every case, to its settled import. There is a resemblance 
 between the condition of an object placed within or under a 
 fluid, and that of the persons said in the above quotations to 
 be immersed. "Whether the person using the term figura- 
 tively thinks of its tropical " (literal ?) " sense, is of no conse- 
 quence; the analogy is the ground of its use in this applica- 
 tion. Does this figurative use of the word cast any doubt 
 on its meaning " (to put in or under a fluid) ? " 'Not the 
 slightest." 
 
 The pointblank contradiction in this language is so patent, 
 that it is truly remarkable that it should have escaped the 
 notice of the Herald. We are first told, that "m these pas- 
 sages immerse does not change its meaning," i. e., it retains 
 its literal meaning to put in or under. Next we are told, " it 
 has reference to its settled import." Is a ''reference" to a 
 thing the same as the thing itself? And, again, we are 
 told that there is a " resemblance" between, &g. How does 
 the resemblance of one thing to another thing make it that 
 thing, or is it consistent with being that thing ? In John 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 43 
 
 Smith, the son, there may be a "reference" to John Smith, 
 the father, because his name is taken from him. But this 
 does not make John Smith, the son, John Smith, the father. 
 There may be a " resemblance " between these parties, in 
 feature, form, size, gait, character, and yet John Smith, the 
 son, is another person from John Smith, the father. ITow, 
 there^may be a " reference," and a " resemblance," between 
 immerse figurative and immerse literal, and they not be the 
 same thing; but, on the contrary, because there is a " refer- 
 ence," and a " resemblance," their distinct existence and 
 character is proven beyond all controversy. 
 
 We are farther told, that " it is of no consequence whether 
 the person using the term figuratively thinks of its tropical" 
 (literal) " sense ; the analogy is the ground of its use." But 
 if the literal sense (" tropical," I presume, has slipped in 
 through inadvertence, and would settle the matter by the 
 admission of a " turned " sense) is not in the mind of the 
 speaker or writer, then " the ground of the analogy " has 
 vanished, and the residuum left behind is the new meaning 
 cut loose from its literal relationship. 
 
 In conformity with this, all writers on figurative language 
 unite in saying, that when the literal use ceases to find any 
 place in the mind, the figurative use has secured a meaning 
 of its own, and thenceforth ceases to be properly designated 
 as figure. Take this illustration : A carpenter in my em- 
 ploy says he has been putting a bonnet over my parlor win- 
 dow. The ground of this use is obvious; but that ground 
 had utterly slipped from out of the mind of this uneducated 
 mechanic, and with him, in carpentry, "bonnet" meant di- 
 rectly, and of its own proper force, a wooden covering to protect 
 a window from sun and rain. 
 
 But the Herald thinks that shame is cast on this doctrine, 
 by every child who knows that immerse has but one literal 
 meaning, and that no sophistry can blind his understanding. 
 
 Let us experiment with this child. A parent says to him, 
 " My child, you are entering upon your education, and I 
 wish you to be immersed in your books." On going, sub- 
 sequently, to this student's room, and calling for him, he is 
 
44 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 answered from " in and under" spelling books, geographies, 
 grammars, dictionaries, and systems of rhetoric, logic, and 
 philosophy, " Here I am, father." On being asked what he 
 is doing there, he replies, from out of his in-under immer- 
 sion, " You wished me to be 'immersed in my books,' and 
 here I am in under the pile." " But, my child, do you not 
 know that 'immersed in books' means to be thoroughly en- 
 gaged in their study?" "Oh no, sir! Every child knows 
 that immerse means ^^w^ in, under, and nothing else; for I 
 read it in the Herald, and ' no sophistry can blind my under- 
 standing.' " So much for " child" knowledge. 
 
 Another test may be applied to the position of the Herald, 
 that immerse, in these relations, undergoes no change of 
 meaning. It is this : the meaning of a word can always be 
 intelligibly substituted, in every use of that word, for the 
 word itself. 
 
 Apply this test: " immersed \i\=^jput in or under'' business, 
 traffic, calculations, politics, worm-eaten folios, &c., &c. Does 
 it answer ? Is it possible in fact ? Is it conceivable in imagi- 
 nation ? Try the baptisms by the same test : " baptized by = 
 thoroughly subject to the influence of evil, anger, misfortune, 
 wine, taxes, midnight," &c., &c. Could adaptation be more 
 perfect ? 
 
 In this interpretation the physical investiture is rejected, 
 (as not having the matter of " reference " or " resemblance,") 
 and thorough subjection to influence, which has the needed "re- 
 semblance," and is the effect of such investiture, is taken. 
 
 To insist that a word, which has been used in one class 
 of relations, and has secured a meaning from use in such 
 relations, must carry that meaning into essentially different 
 relations, and maintain it there unchanged by new influences, 
 is to war against the philosophy of language, against facts 
 in every department of the physical, intellectual, moral, and 
 social world, and is, on its face, absurd. 
 
 A hundred stones thrown together make, in such relation, 
 a pile. The same stones laid in consecutive order make, in 
 such relation, a line. When builded together in a half circle 
 they make, in such relation, an arch. 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 45 
 
 The digits, without relation to each other, have an in- 
 dependent value, which value is immediately changed on 
 entering into arithmetical relations. A cipher, which is a 
 nothing, independently, becomes of prodigious value on en- 
 tering into such relations. It converts a unit (1) into a mil- 
 lion (1,000,000). So, by the unity of relationship established 
 by such bonds as these— (3+3) =6; (3— 3) = 0; (3x3)=9; 
 (3-4-3)=:l — the same characters, which have a settled inde- 
 pendent value, become utterly and diversely changed. 
 
 In like manner, every vowel, which has an independent 
 value, has that value changed by entering into relation with 
 other letters, as mar, map, man, mate, &c. So, letters, forming 
 words expressive of thought, by a change of relation among 
 themselves, change entirely the thought, e. g., the same let- 
 ters which, in a certain relation, express time, in another re- 
 lation express emit, and in another item, and in another mite, 
 and in another I met, and in yet another me it. A simple 
 change of relation produces all these changes of thought. 
 
 The same is true in the relation of words. Some of these 
 relations are of simple order, as " he is here," or " here he 
 is," without change of thought; some involve a change in 
 grammatical construction, as " the boy ate the pig," and 
 " the pig ate the boy;" some relations of words are organic, 
 and the several words cannot be interpreted, except in their 
 organic relations to each other, without destroying the life, 
 which is the result of the union. 
 
 If a child asks, What is light ? and is pointed to the rain- 
 bow and told, " Light is red, and orange, and yellow, and 
 green, and blue, and indigo, and violet," has he received a 
 truthful answer ? J^o. Light is neither red, nor orange, 
 nor yellow, nor green, nor blue, nor indigo, nor violet; nor 
 is it red, and orange, and yellow, and green, and blue, and 
 indigo, and violet; but it is a new result from the interac- 
 tion of these colors when placed in certain relations to each 
 other; each communicating and receiving a modifying in- 
 fluence. So it is with words in organic thought-relations. 
 Independent life is sacrificed to a new organic life. 
 ' In the words — "the entire crew were baptized" — there is 
 
46 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 no definite, common thought-life. Phraseological combina- 
 tions of words must not be interpreted disjunctly, but con- 
 junctly. You may galvanize the article and adjective, noun 
 and verb, and you will get no answer. They are dead as to 
 all power to utter any complete thought. It is only the man 
 who knows what " sod" means, because he has " dug sods 
 many a time," that will think otherwise. The sentence must 
 be vitalized by union with an adjunct to the verb. If that 
 adjunct should be — hy a destructive iemjyesi, then we will have 
 a fearful life imparted to the words. If it should be — bi/ ex- 
 cessive ivine-driiiJdng, then we should have a very shameful 
 life communicated to them. But whether fearful or shame- 
 ful, "baptized" cannot be interpreted disjunctly, but must 
 retain its organic union with and receive its life from its 
 adjunct, unless we would stumble over " Jacob sod pottage," 
 or " hinder the resurrection." 
 
 The Herald will, I trust, perceive that the condemnatory 
 ad hominem, drawn from the representation made by Classic 
 Baptism of baptize and immerse, has not hurt, and I am sure 
 its esteemed editors will accept the rebounding blow in all 
 good nature. 
 
 3. The argumenium ad absurdum. — The ad absurdum part 
 of the review relates to "the conclusion." It belongs to the 
 same class with the Lowell machinery and whetstone. To 
 these are, however, added "birth" and "a dose of ipecac;" 
 there is not added a big jnnch of snuff, nor stuwiring a sore toe. 
 Enough has been said of this " absurdity," (mine or theirs,) 
 and I add no more. 
 
 I must notice, however, one remarkable error in this con- 
 nection. It is the idea that literal baptisms are limited to 
 those mentioned on page 235, and are " without influence." 
 The literal baptisms extend through the fifty following pages, 
 aud these are all with influence. On this error is based the 
 more important one, " We suppose the author ascribes the 
 power of 'thoroughly changing the character, state, or con- 
 dition of an object,' not to literal, but to figurative baptism." 
 This is very far from being the case. The conclusion era- 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 47 
 
 braces both the acts of literal baptism and the influences of 
 figurative baptism. All literal, primary baptisms change the 
 condition of their objects by placing them in a condition 
 of intusposition. Of these baptisms there are two classes : 
 (1.) Such as are not influenced by their intusposition, as a 
 rock. (2.) Such as, in addition to simple intusposition, also, 
 receive influence therefrom, as a sponge, &c. 
 
 It is on this latter class of literal baptisms, and, specifically, 
 on the thorough influence proceeding from them, that bap- 
 tisms of thorough change of condition efifected by influence 
 without intusposition, are grounded. 
 
 Slips like this, though on a large scale, are readily ac- 
 counted for by the weekly recurring editorial baptism. 
 
 4. Concessions. — 1. '■^ It is conceded that, if 'a state of puri- 
 fication' is baptism, then it is baptism whether induced by 
 sprinkling, magnetism, fire, or anything else. But if it be 
 so, it does not follow that sprinkling is baptism. Baptism, 
 in the case supposed, denotes the effect of sprinkling and not 
 the sprinkling itself." 
 
 All of which is most orthodox and quite to the purpose. 
 
 2. " It is conceded that, figuratively, baptism was employed 
 by Greek authors to denote any strong controlling influence 
 by which an object was mersed or whelmed ; or in which 
 there was a resemblance between the object under such in- 
 fluence and an object baptized, mersed, intusposed. It does 
 not follow, that because an object under a controlling, trans- 
 forming, overwhelming influence is said to be baptized, that 
 every influence that changes ' character, state, or condition,' 
 baptizes it." 
 
 Thank you kindly for this truly welcome aid and comfort. 
 To what class of influences does the "emetic" belong? 
 
 3. "ii! is conceded that the Greeks called drunkenness bap- 
 tism; and in this baptism there was no envelopment. An 
 intoxicated man was baptized by wine. It was not the 
 drinking of wine, nor the operation of it, but the condition — 
 the intoxication resulting from its use — that was called the 
 baptism." 
 
48 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 If the author of Classic Baptism be not content with these 
 sweeping concessions, he must be one of the hardest of men 
 to please. They cover, directly or indirectly, all that Classic 
 Baptism was written to establish, and the Baptist theory is, 
 by them, numbered among the things that were. 
 
 The Herald concludes, " We can only promise, that should 
 life, strength, and opportunity be allowed us, and should we 
 be able to procure the forthcoming volumes, we will give 
 them a candid notice. Here, for the present, we take re- 
 spectful leave of Mr. Dale." 
 
 THE BAPTIST QUARTERLY. 
 
 The Baptist Quarterly for April, 1869, contains an article 
 (27 pp.) entitled "Dale's Classic Baptism. By Prof. A. C. 
 Kendrick, D.D., Rochester, New York." 
 
 There may be some who would wish to know what would 
 be said from such a quarter. A theological seminary and 
 its professorate, are naturally suggestive of a pure and loving 
 atmosphere, while a Quarterly lifts up the thoughts to what 
 is weighty with truth and dignified in bearing. How the 
 practical outworking of things harmonizes with their popu- 
 lar estimation, may be learned from the following 
 
 QUOTATIONS. 
 
 " Philological thimble-rigging, tricks of legerdemain, dex- 
 terous, or would-be dexterous manipulation, — of these feats 
 of petty sleight of hand Mr. Dale's book is full ; an elaborate 
 and persistent efibrt to trick jSaTtTi^oj out of its honest mean- 
 ing. — "Without learning, without philosophy, and without can- 
 dor. — As ignorant as if he lived in another planet. — ^Either 
 ignorance scarcely less than disgraceful, or something less 
 complimentary. — The slenderest acquaintance with critics 
 and commentators. — As barren verbal criticism as it was ever 
 our misfortune to read, or any sensible man to write. — Such 
 pitiful drivel, and the book is plethoric with it. — Phastasma- 
 goria of contradictions. — Strange compound of folly and ir- 
 reverence. — Incredible puerility. — Is there another living 
 man out of the idiot's asylum. — Impertinent and insulting. — 
 
BAPTIST CKITICISMS OP CLASSIC BAPTISM. 49 
 
 Spare his scoffings. — Has not taken a single honest step. — 
 Largely false and scientifically worthless. — Pure superfluity 
 and grand impertinence. — Humanity has stood him instead 
 of knowledge. — Sense or nonsense. — Verbal manipulations. 
 — Skilful avoidance of correctness, elegance, and sense. — By 
 such a one as Mr. Dale. — Descend a great many degrees 
 before getting near the level of the expounder of Classic 
 Baptism. — A man who has neither taste nor scholarship. — 
 Dreary and barren criticism. — His feeble ridicule recoils on 
 the captious critic. — Monstrous doctrine. — An absurdity too 
 great to need a moment's argumentation. — Uniform render- 
 ing intentionally false, or intentionally unmeaning. — The 
 doctrine is unphilosophical and false. — A spirit of narrow 
 and bitter partisanship. — A scholarly attitude is apparently 
 beyond the conception of Mr. Dale. — His book one half 
 false, one half irrelevant. — Partly false and partly nonsense. 
 — With his accustomed insolence." 
 
 It is not necessary to eat an entire joint of meat to learn 
 whether it is tainted or not. These morceaux are enough 
 to test the quality of this "joint." Boiled down they leave 
 this twofold residuum : 1. Mr. Dale is a fool. 2. His book 
 is a lie. 
 
 QUOTATIONS IN ANOTHER DIRECTION. 
 
 "l^obody doubts that ^dnru) may mean to dip. BanriCio be- 
 came naturally applied ordinarily to immersions of a more 
 formal and longer character, while ^dnTU} ordinarily denoted 
 the lighter and the shorter. — Thus arose the distinction sug- 
 gested by Dr. Dagg, giving a partial foundation for the 
 dogma of Mr. Dale. — "We repeat, none will deny the partial 
 truth of Mr. Dale's distinction. — The submersion of wine 
 (710 matter how, by pouring, if Mr. Dale pleases) in sea-water. 
 — It is not a dipping that our Lord instituted. — He did not 
 command to put people into the water and take them out again, 
 but to put them under the water. "We repeat, with emphasis, 
 for the consideration of our Baptist brethren : Christian bap- 
 tism is no mere literal and senseless " dipping," assuring the 
 
 4 
 
oO JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 frighteiied candidate of a safe exit from the water. — Grant- 
 ing that ^dr.rat always engages to take its subject out of the 
 water (which we do not believe) and that ISanziCu* never does 
 engage to take its subject out of the water, (which we readily 
 admit.) — We let /Sarrr^T"' take us into the water, and can trust 
 to men's instinctive love of life, their common sense, their 
 power of volition and normal muscular action, to bring them 
 safely out. — The law of God in Revelation sends the Baptist 
 down into the waters of immersion; when it is accomplished, 
 the equally imperative law of God in nature brings him safely 
 out." 
 
 Subjecting these passages to a sublimation we get this 
 result : 
 
 1. " There is an annoying streak of truth (got in there, 
 somehow, by the help of the devil, or of Dr. Dagg), running 
 through 'that lie.' " 
 
 2. " Make all haste to square up your notions of baptism 
 by this streak of truth. Baptist brethren ! I warn you, once 
 and again, that you must get rid of di2?. Dip puts into the 
 water and takes out; baptize never takes out of the water what 
 it onc^ 'puts in. Abandon dipping and go down under the 
 water, trusting to 'nature and muscle' to bring you out. 
 Then, when ' this fool ' comes along with his thunder we will 
 be ready for him." 
 
 One of my theological professors, with whom a universal 
 courtesy was as the breath of his life, once said to me: " If 
 the devil were to pass me and salute me courteously, I would 
 courteously return the salute." He did not say, that if the 
 devil came with horns down, and tail up, and hoof stamping, 
 and breath sulphurous, that he would have any salutation 
 for him. I suppose he would get out of his way. I do not 
 know that I can do better than to follow his example. I 
 have, therefore, no salutation for the " Professor of the Bap- 
 tist Theological Seminary, of Rochester, Il^ew York," (not 
 even "a railing accusation,") but proceed to get out of his 
 way. 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 51 
 
 Having, therefore, no further need for this double distil- 
 lation of "Dale's Classic Baptism, by A. C. Kendrick, D.D., 
 Professor of Greek, Baptist Theological Seminary, Roches- 
 ter, 'New York, — Philadelphia, American Baptist Publica- 
 tion Society, 530 Arch Street," I make it over, all and par- 
 ticular, to whom it may concern, not forgetting, in especial, 
 "his accustomed insolence." 
 
 CRITICISMS FOUNDED IN MISCONCEPTION. 
 
 Any one who will look through the criticisms now pre- 
 sented, will perceive, that, so far as they relate to any mate- 
 rial point, they are directed not against the positions of 
 Classic Baptism, but against something else widely difierent 
 from them. 
 
 There are controversial artifices for converting granite ob- 
 stacles into straw figments; but I do not believe that they 
 have been used in this case. N^or will I say, that the miscon- 
 ception is due wholly to others, and in no wise to myself; but 
 to Avhomsoever it may belong, it is desirable that all ground 
 for its continuance should, if possible, be removed. Let me, 
 then, advert to the more important points, and indicate their 
 true import. 
 
 1. It is objected, that ^oKTiZm is made to express condition 
 only, all act being eliminated. 
 
 The true position as taken is, the word expresses condition 
 of intusposition, involving some act adequate for its accom- 
 plishment, but not expressing or requiring any particular 
 form of act. And in this there is no singularity. It is com- 
 mon to all words of the same class. 
 
 2. It is objected, that one word has been used to translate 
 BaizriZio throughout, and therefore, it must have one meaning. 
 
 The truth is, that one word is used in all cases where the 
 one Greek word is used, not as its translation, but as its rep- 
 resentative. It being distinctly stated, that neither this word 
 (merse), nor any other word in the English language, can, in 
 one meaning, translate the Greek word ; that this will be 
 manifest to every reader, who will, therefore, be required to 
 modify th e meaning of this one word to meet the exigency 
 
52 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 of the passage, and so, be made to feel that the one Greek 
 word has, in usage, undergone a correspondent change. It 
 was farther stated, that the unusual word " merse" was taken, 
 because it would be more readily susceptible of such modi- 
 fications than any word already familiar in a fixed meaning. 
 (See pp. 129-134, C. B.) 
 
 3. It is objected, that Classic Baptism disregards the gene- 
 rally received interpretation of language, by assigning a di- 
 rect meaning to phraseology, which should be understood 
 figuratively. 
 
 The objection is groundless. There is no departure from 
 the principles laid down by accredited writers on figurative 
 language. Metaphorical language is as truly subject to laws 
 and interpretation as is literal language. It has, also, a 
 meaning as distinct, and as susceptible of development, as 
 language used in physical relations. 
 
 In a metaphor there is an untruth stated according to a 
 purely disjunct verbal interpretation. But this mode of in- 
 terpretation is as false as is the conception deduced by its 
 operation. *' Achilles is a lion," is an untrue statement only 
 under an erroneous interpretation. Every metaphor is self- 
 corrective in its terms. Achilles and lion qualify each other. 
 In their relation as the utterance of a sane man to sane men, 
 they say, — The meaning is not that a man is a wild beast; 
 but that there is something in this peerless warrior, which 
 resembles something in this king of the forest ; which thing 
 you are to find out and receive as the meaning designed to 
 be conveyed by this language. In the metaphor, ^' Great 
 Britain has a watery bulwark ; " there is an inconsistency 
 between "water" and " bulwark" interpreted independently; 
 but qualified by their relation to Great Britain in its island 
 character, the upraised stone or earth disappears from bul- 
 wark, and the residual idea of lyrotection remains, and assim- 
 ilates with flowing water. And the meaning of the phrase is, 
 and is nothing else, than that Great Britain has a protection 
 in its surrounding seas.. 
 
 In such language the mind finds pleasure in the boldness 
 of the statement, in being aroused to consider and deduce 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 53 
 
 the truth designed, latent amid incongruities, in its dis- 
 covery of that sought for, and with its adaptation to the end 
 required. 
 
 There is a conundrum character belonging to the metaphor, 
 which the hearer or reader is called upon to solve. It may be 
 put in this form : " Why is Achilles like a lion ? " " Why 
 may Great Britain be said to have a watery bulwark ? " 
 " Why is the London Times the thunderer ? " But as every 
 conundrum has a definite solution which is its meaning, so, 
 every metaphor has its solution and definite meaning, which 
 cannot be allowed to evaporate in undefined shadow, or to 
 speak erroneously under a mistaken interpretation. Every 
 metaphor presents to us terms between which there are many 
 incongruities, and one (at least) point of resemblance. The 
 incongruities are to be thrown aside as nothing to the pur- 
 pose ; and the resemblance, alone, to be taken as the residual 
 grain of gold required. 
 
 Classic Baptism (pp. 294, 299), refers to the following cases 
 of baptism : " Cnemon, perceiving that he was deeply grieved 
 and baptized by the calamity, and fearing lest he may do 
 himself some injury, removes the sword privately." "The 
 relation of your wanderings, often postponed, as you know, 
 because the casualties still baptized you, you could not keep 
 for a better time than the present." 
 
 The objectors say, that these baptisms must be interpreted 
 as figure. Well, Classic Baptism does not say, that they 
 may not be so interpreted, in a common sense way. Its 
 denial is, that any sound interpretation will put these parties 
 under water in fact or in figure. It does not deny, that the 
 true meaning of the passage may be reached by tracing a 
 resemblance in some respect, between the condition, of an 
 object induced by a state of mersion, and the condition of 
 these persons induced by calamity and casualty. 
 
 But in any interpretation, it must be noted at the outset, 
 that these baptized conditions were not transient, but pro- 
 tracted through days, weeks, or months. This settles the 
 matter as to these living men being regarded as being, 
 through these periods, under water, oil, milk, blood, or marsh- 
 
64 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 mud. The resemblance is between something in their con- 
 dition not thus covered, and something in the condition of 
 an object which is so covered. A farther point settled is, 
 that the resemblance is not to the covered condition of a bap- 
 tized object, for there is no such existent condition effected 
 by calamity. The resemblance, then, must be sought in some 
 effect produced by a covered condition, and some effect pro- 
 duced in the condition of one affected by calamity. 
 
 l!^ow, the specific effects of a covered condition in water, 
 oil, milk, blood, marsh-mud, &c., are various; and as the 
 metaphorical condition is one, the resemblance cannot be to 
 all. It is just as clear, that the reference cannot be to any 
 specific influence ; because there is no reference to one more 
 than to another. E^either can the resemblance be to that 
 effect which is common to them all, namely, the suffocation 
 of a human being by protracted mersion ; for there is no cor- 
 responding suffocation to which such effect should be like. 
 
 There is but one other point in which fluids, semi-fluids, 
 and readily penetrable substances, unite in common effect 
 upon enclosed objects, and that is a controlling influence 
 stripped of specialty. Such an efi'ect finds its correspond- 
 ence in the completest manner in both parties spoken of by 
 Heliodorus. They have long been in a condition induced by 
 the complete influence of " calamity" and " casualty." And 
 baptize is not only not used to express a covered condition, 
 real or imaginary, on the part of these sufferers, but it is 
 not used to express the covered condition of the object; the 
 sentiment of the metaphor has nothing to do with covering, 
 but with the effect resulting from such covering. 
 
 Thus, if this phraseology be treated as designed figure, we 
 are compelled to cast away everything but controlling influ- 
 ence. 
 
 "Whether it ought to be so treated, or whether it should be 
 interpreted as directly expressive of influence, is another 
 question. 
 
 Some might choose to interpret as metaphor the state- 
 ments, "A people enlightened by education are capable of self- 
 government," ^'' Established in rectitude by Christianity, they 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 5d 
 
 live in peace." But, I presume, there are not many who 
 would quarrel with those who should prefer to say, metaphor 
 has vanished from such language ; and it conveys its senti- 
 ment not through a resemblance to sunlight, or a building 
 founded on a rock, but makes direct announcement of the 
 influences of education and Christianity. 
 
 There is no more ground for complaint, when it is de- 
 clared, "baptized by calamity," and "by casualty," &c. &c., 
 express directly, and not merely through resemblance, their 
 legitimate influence. 
 
 These Avere every-day expressions among the Greeks, and 
 we must remember, " There is very little, comparatively, of 
 energy produced by any metaphor that is in common use, 
 and already familiar to the hearer. Indeed, what were origi- 
 nally the boldest metaphors, are become, by long use, virtu- 
 ally, proper terms." (Whately, Rhetoric, p. 195.) "And as 
 to ordinary metaphors, and which are commonly very numer- 
 ous in every tongue, the metaphorical meaning comes to be as 
 really ascertained by custom in the particular language, as 
 the original, or what is called the literal, meaning of the 
 word." ' ' They have nothing of the effect of metaphor upon 
 the hearer. On the contrary, they suggest, like proper terms, 
 directly to the mind, without the intervention of any image, the 
 ideas which the speaker intended to convey by them." " The 
 invariable effect of very frequent use being to convert the 
 metaphorical into a proper meaning." (Campbell, Philosophy 
 of Ehetoric, pp. 344, 348.) Campbell farther states, (p. 346,) 
 "It is very remarkable, that the usages in different languages 
 differ, insomuch that the same trope will suggest opposite 
 ideas in different tongues." [N'ow, both the verbal form and 
 thought of the metaphor under consideration diflers in the 
 Greek and English languages. "Immersed m calamity" 
 makes calamity the element and inn ess the basis of the 
 thought; but "baptized 6?/ calamity," makes calamity the 
 agency and controlling power the basis of the sentiment. 
 Inness is neither expressed nor necessarily implied. "Bap- 
 tized in a storm" denotes destruction <im??_^ the continuance 
 of a storm; "baptized by a storm" denotes the destructive 
 
56 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 power of the storm. " Jotapata baptized in the departure of 
 Josephus" is nonsense; ^^ baptized by the departure of Jose- 
 phus" expresses the ruinous influence consequent on his de- 
 parture. The English does not use " immersed by calamity " to 
 denote the agency of calamity, but overwhelmed by. Kor does 
 it say " immersed into calamity ; " m-mersed expresses position, 
 into expresses movement. Their conjunction would be incon- 
 gruous. The English use of immerse and the Greek usage of 
 ^armZio are by no means parallel, and "the trope founded on 
 these words has essential difference in the different tongues." 
 
 The objection that novelty of principle in the interpreta- 
 tion of figurative language has been introduced into Classic 
 Baptism, is surely without any just foundation. 
 
 4. It is objected that "the conclusion " of Classic Baptism 
 is too broad ; that there are many things which exert a com- 
 plete influence in changing condition which could not, prop- 
 erly, be said to baptize. 
 
 This objection is grounded both in a failure of compre- 
 hension and of discrimination. 
 
 There has been a failure to comprehend both acts and in- 
 fluences as causative of changes of condition, and a failure 
 to discriminate between the characteristic differences in the 
 changed conditions, effected, respectively, by act and influ- 
 ence. 
 
 The only change of condition effected by " act," with which 
 Classic Baptism has anything to do, is that resulting from 
 an object being intusposed within some readily penetrable 
 medium. 
 
 If, now, the act of eharpening a knife by a whetstone 
 changes the condition of the knife by putting it under the icater; 
 or if a power-loom, by its action, puts a bale of cotton into the 
 mill-dam^ then they will come within the range of the "con- 
 clusion," and may be employed to test its correctness; but 
 not till then. 
 
 In like manner "the influences" of Classic Baptism have 
 their limitation. They are not only complete in their con- 
 trolling power, but they assimilate the condition of the bap- 
 tized object to their own peculiarities. Thus, an intoxicat- 
 
BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 57 
 
 ing influence produces an intoxicated condition ; a soporific 
 influence produces a soporific condition ; a stupefying influ- 
 ence produces a stupefied condition; an oppressive influence 
 produces an oppressed condition. 
 
 If, now, the amputating knife influences the condition of 
 the patient, assimilating it to the characteristics of the cutting steel, 
 then it may be employed to test the doctrine whether all in- 
 fluences, like those of which Classic Baptism treats, may be 
 justly said to baptize. 
 
 Every conclusion should be broad enough to include all 
 the particulars from which it is deduced; it should not be 
 expected to have greater breadth. 
 
 The brevity with which the conclusion of Classic Baptism 
 is stated might render it obscure, or apparently erroneous, 
 to one who had not thoughtfully read the volume on which 
 that conclusion rests ; but, none others, I think, would find 
 any embarrassment in its statement. 
 
 It might be amplified thus: "Whatever act is capable of 
 thoroughly changing the character, state, or condition, of any 
 object, by placing it in a state of physical iniusposition, is capable 
 of baptizing that object; and whatever influence is capable of 
 thoroughly changing the character, state, or condition, of 
 any object, by pervading it and making it subject to its own charac- 
 teristic, is capable of baptizing that object; and by such 
 changes of character, state, or condition, these acts and influ- 
 ences do, in fact, baptize their objects." 
 
 There is nothing in this more amplified form, other than 
 what was in contemplation when the briefer form was written, 
 and which is stated everywhere in the preceding pages of the 
 volume. 
 
 As there are "acts" which change the condition of their 
 objects without changing it in that way here contemplated, 
 to wit, by placing them in intusposition, and are, therefore, 
 excluded from consideration; so, there are "influences" 
 which change condition, but not after the manner of those 
 with which we have here to do, and are therefore excluded, 
 in like manner. 
 
58 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 All the objections offered against the positions and con- 
 clusions of Classic Baptism have, now, been presented and 
 considered. 
 
 In view of them, we are fully warranted in concluding, 
 that those positions and conclusions are substantially correct. 
 
 By them we are led to view the word under an essentially 
 different aspect from which it has, heretofore, been usually 
 considered. Between a word which is expressive of the ex- 
 ecution of the mere form of a transitory act, and a word 
 which is expressive of a condition characterized by complete- 
 ness of envelopment, fulness of influence, and without limi- 
 tation of continuance, there must be the broadest distinction, 
 not only in primary import, but also in development. 
 
 It has appeared to me to be all-essential, that we should 
 reach clearness of views as to the essential character of the 
 disputed word when used in the classics, before entering 
 upon its usage within the sphere of revealed religion. 
 
 This, now, has been measurably accomplished. We will, 
 therefore, proceed to follow the word among Jewish writers, 
 and among Jewish ceremonials, to note any modifications 
 which it may undergo, either by limitation, amplification, or 
 specific application. 
 
 The separate examination of each case of baptism will 
 necessarily involve a frequent reference to the same prin- 
 ciples of exposition and of appeal to the same illustrative 
 facts. There are advantages, however, in this course which 
 greatly counterbalance the disadvantages. 
 
 The quotations of Patristic writers are made, almost with- 
 out exception, from the latest Paris edition, published under 
 the editorial charge of the Abbe Mign^. 
 
 The quotations are limited, with rare exceptions, tp writers 
 of the first four centuries. 
 
JEWISH WRITERS. 
 
 (59) 
 
JOSEPHUS-PHILO-SON OF SIEACH. 
 
 Jewish writers exhibit the most thorough knowledge 
 of, and the most entire familiarity with, the Greek word 
 BAnriZQ. 
 
 It is not a little remarkable, considering the limited ex- 
 tent of their writings, that they should furnish an illustra- 
 tion of every phase of usage presented by the Classic Greek 
 writers. 
 
 With this complete mastery of the word, we may feel the 
 most entire confidence that, if they carry the word into any 
 field of thought unknown to the Classics, any such new 
 usage or application will be found to be in perfect harmony 
 with the fundamental character of the word. 
 
 In order that the identity of conception and usage, as to 
 this word, by Jew and Greek, may be at once obvious, the 
 same classification of passages will be made now, as that 
 which was presented in Classic Baptism. 
 
 BAHTIZQ. 
 
 INTUSPOSITION WITHOUT INFLUENCE. 
 
 PRIMARY USE. 
 
 Tijv re ds^t&v dvarscvag, w<; firjdiva XaOeTv, oXov etc tiji/ iaorou ccpayr^v 
 i^oKTiGs TO ^i<po<;. 
 
 And stretching out his right band, so as to escape notice by 
 none, he mersed the entire sword into his throat. 
 
 Josephus, Jewish War, ii, 18. 
 
 This is the case of Simon, a distinguished Jew, who, after 
 he had slain his parents, wife, and children, to prevent their 
 
 (61 ) 
 
62 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 falling into tlie power of the enemy, committed suicide. All 
 the facts of the case, the act performed, and the issue reached, 
 are well known. 
 
 In what aspect is ^anziZo} presented ? Does it announce 
 the performance of a definite, modal act ? Dr. Conant says 
 yes, and translates 'plunge. This translation his friend Booth 
 would probably accept without feeling that, thereby, " his 
 sentiments were made ridiculous." And he would be right. 
 Baptist sentiments are not made " ridiculous " by speaking 
 of a sword " plunged," instead of a sword " mersed." But 
 the difficulty with "Baptist sentiments" is, that when they 
 once translate a word which has but " one meaning through 
 all Greek literature" by "plunge," its ghost will ever re- 
 turn, "Unbidden, to trouble them. And this is not only vex- 
 atious, but, as the venerable Booth declares, makes their 
 sentiments " ridiculous." It is, also, obvious that, while 
 " plunge " very properly represents the act performed in this 
 case, it does not represent iSanni^u) ; for if Simon had, after 
 the example of Saul, fixed the hilt of his sword upon the 
 ground, and fallen upon it, the sword would have been equally 
 baptized — mersed; but the act of "plunging" would have 
 wholly disappeared, and, according to Baptist translation, 
 ^aTzriZu) would denote the definite act " fall upon." In fact, 
 it expresses neither ; while it accepts the one, or the other, 
 or a score beside, as equally competent to meet its demand 
 for a state of intusposition for its object. 
 
 It is no less obvious, that this intusposition is without in- 
 fluence upon the sword. Simon is slain; the sword is unaf- 
 fected. Whether the sword be sheathed in Simon's throat, 
 or in its own scabbard, it is equally unafifected by the mer- 
 sion. It is important to notice this, because baptisms charac- 
 terized by influence without envelopment could never origi- 
 nate in such sword baptism, but must originate in another 
 class of baptisms, viz., baptisms attended by influence upon 
 the objects baptized. 
 
BAPTISM WITH INFLUENCE. 63 
 
 INTUSPOSITION WITH INFLUENCE. 
 
 1. BaTZTtffdivToq yap yjiiwv rou TzXoiou xara fxiaov rbv ^Adpiav. 
 
 Life of Josephus, § 3. 
 
 2. OuTtco jiiXXovToq fiaTZTc^effffac rod ffxdpovq. Jewish Antiq., ix, 10. 
 
 3. Meriwpoq onepapdelq 6 xXudcov ^^dizTtaev. " " iii, 9. 
 
 4. Kat GUV auToT^ i^anriZovro axd(pe(Ti. " " iii, 10. 
 
 5. Twv dk ^aTzriadi.vT(uv rohq avaveuovraq. " '* iii, 10. 
 
 1. Our vessel having been mersed in the midst of the Adriatic. 
 
 2. The vessel being on the point of being mersed. 
 
 3. A lofty billow rising above mersed them. 
 
 4. And wei-e mersed with their vessels. \ 
 
 5. But of the mersed those rising to the surface. 
 
 PAETICULAR CASES EXAMINED. 
 BAPTISM WITH INFLUENCE. 
 
 1. " For our vessel having been mersed in the midst of 
 the Adriatic, being in number about six hundred, we swam 
 through the entire night." 
 
 In the transaction here referred to, Josepbus was himself 
 a party. The fact is similar to those related in Classic Bap- 
 tism and described by the same word. A ship is lost at sea 
 and sinks to the bottom, and is said to be baptized — mersed. 
 The form of the act involved in this case is invested with no 
 doubt. It is sinking. And inasmuch as the form of act in 
 sinking is not the same as the form of act in jplunging^ we, at 
 once, see that the attempt to translate ^aTZTiZu) by a word ex- 
 pressive of act, definite in form, is a mistake. Conant trans- 
 lates, submerged. In doing so, he abandons that modality of 
 form which he had incorporated in his translation of the pre- 
 ceding case, and adopts a word expressive of condition. 
 
 It should, also, be noted, that in this baptism there is no 
 recovery of the baptized object. It remains in the Adriatic 
 to this day. The influence attendant upon this baptism was 
 entirely destructive in its character. The facts, throughout, 
 indicate our interpretation of the word, while they are ruin- 
 ous to " the theory." 
 
64 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 2. " The vessel being on the point of being mersed." 
 Josephus gives an account of Jonah's disobedience, his 
 
 flight to Joppa, his embarkation on shipboard, the storm 
 which arose during the voyage to Tarsus, and the momently 
 threatened destruction of the ship, which he describes by 
 saying, it was " on the point of being baptized." 
 
 The storm neither threatened to dip or to plunge the vessel. 
 It did threaten to baptize, to swallow up, to engulf, to merse, 
 to place in a condition within the swelling waves without 
 recovery. Out of this threatened condition, full of destruc- 
 tive influence, the vessel was delivered by the sacrifice of the 
 guilty prophet. 
 
 The Baptist theory, as to the meaning of the word, finds 
 no support in this transaction. Intiipposition, without limita- 
 tion of act, or time, or influence, squarely covers the case. 
 
 3. " The lofty billow, rising above, mersed them." 
 
 The Jews, to escape the Romans, after the capture of 
 Joppa, betook themselves to their vessels, and put out from 
 the shore. A storm, however, arose, which proved very de- 
 structive to their shipping. Attempting to escape from the 
 rocky shore, and the certain death which there awaited them, 
 they turned toward the inrolling swell of the sea, and " the 
 lofty billows, rising above their vessels, mersed them." The 
 pressure of the storm-driven waves and the weight of the 
 water falling upon their frail boats sank them. 
 
 Such cases of baptism make havoc of the Baptist concep- 
 tion of this word, dipping and modal action, while they 
 bring fresh tribute to that idea of its nature which liberates 
 it from all trammels of form, and gives it control over all 
 acts competent to meet its imperious demand, in primary 
 use, for intusposition. 
 
 4. "And were mersed with their vessels." 
 
 After the capture of Tarichea, the Jews entered the ves- 
 sels which had been prepared for such an emergency, and 
 engaged in a sea-fight on Lake Genesareth with shipping 
 got ready to attack them by Vespasian. 
 
BAPTISM WITH INFLUENCE. 65 
 
 The lighter vessels of the Jews were crushed by the 
 heavier Roman ships, and "the Jews were mersed with their 
 vessels." 
 
 Whatever forms of action may be involved in effecting 
 the baptisms, a tempest blast, a swelling billow, the crush- 
 ing blow of a war-ship, all alike eschew a dipping, while all, 
 with one consent, effect the demanded state of intuspositiou 
 with its controlling influence. 
 
 5. "But of those mersed that rose to the surface, either a 
 dart overtook or a vessel seized upon them." 
 
 The occurrence, here referred to, belongs to the same 
 naval engagement. The special point claiming attention is 
 the fact that persons mersed, with a sinking ship, may come 
 to the surface again previous to being drowned. Mersion 
 is always unlimited, in itself, as to the time of continuance ; 
 but it does not preclude the intervention of other causes to 
 bring it to a termination. In the present case, it was the 
 desire and effort of the Romans to make the mersion perma- 
 nent; but, not having immediate control of the baptized, 
 they, by their efforts to escape the natural and ordinary con- 
 sequence of baptism in water of human beings, succeeded 
 in rising to the surface. It can hardly be necessary to call 
 attention to the immense and radical difference between 
 such a baptism and a dipping. A human being baptized into 
 water, and left to the natural force of such baptism, state, 
 or condition, will as certainly and invariably perish as that 
 man was created to live upon the earth and to breathe the 
 atmosphere. A hu^mn being dipped into water, and left to 
 the natural force of such dipping, (dipping introduces into 
 no state or condition,) will as certainly and invariably ex- 
 perience no other effect than a superficial wetting, as that 
 dipping carries its object, momentarily, into and recovers it 
 out of water. 
 
 ■ Any attempt to unify things so alien in nature as a bap- 
 tism and dipping must end in the blankest disappointment. 
 
 Neither aid nor comfort, then, can be derived' from this 
 
 5 
 
66 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 transaction to sustain the Baptist theory in the sore extremity 
 to which it is reduced. 
 
 Ships baptized (carried to the bottom of the sea) by tem- 
 pest or naval battle, and human beings baptized (drowned, 
 or a right honest attempt made for it), will indicate ^anriZm 
 as a word competent to bring its objects into a new state or 
 condition characterized by controlling influence, but they 
 can have neither part nor lot in an effort to fasten upon that 
 word the fiction of a dipping. 
 
 INTUSPOSITION FOE INFLUENCE. 
 
 1. Bapouvreq del xai (iaTZTiZovreq wq iv Tzaidta v7]^6;j.£vov. 
 
 Jewish Antiq., xv, 3. 
 
 2. BaTTzdio/xsvoq iv xoXu/j.[?7j6pa, zeXevra. Jewish War, i, 22. 
 
 3. ^ E^d-KTifftv ixojv TO <S7.d(poq. " " iii, 8. 
 
 1. Always pressing down and mersing him, as if in sport, while 
 
 swimming, they ceased not until they had wholly drowned 
 him. 
 
 2. And there, being mersed in the pool by the Galatians accord- 
 
 ing to command, he died. 
 
 3. Voluntarily mersed his ship. 
 
 PAKTICULAE CASES EXAMINED. 
 
 BAPTISMS FOR INFLUENCE. 
 
 1. " Always pressing down and mersing him, as if in sport, 
 while swimming." 
 
 Aristobulus, high priest and of royal blood, greatly be- 
 loved by the people, had awakened the suspicion and jealousy 
 of Herod, the reigning monarch, but without claim, by lineal 
 descent, to the throne. Herod, having resolved upon his 
 destruction, allured him to engage in sportive exercise, and 
 when heated thereby, enticed him to a fish-pond, within his 
 
BAPTISMS FOR INFLUENCE. 67 
 
 palace grounds, to induce him to seek refreshment by bath- 
 ing in its waters. In the pond were already some of his 
 creatures under pretence of bathing, but really to carry out 
 the murderous intent of the king. Aristobulus having en- 
 tered the pond, these assassins consummated their purpose 
 by " pressing down and mersing his head while he was 
 swimming, as if in sport." Thus Aristobulus was murdered 
 by being drowned. 
 
 The comment of Dr. Carson on this transaction is as follows : 
 "Aristobulus was several times dipped before he was entirely 
 suffocated. If so, the action of the verb was performed on 
 him without destroying him. He might have been saved 
 after having been immersed. It was not the word haptizo 
 which destroyed him. It was the keeping him too long 
 under the water after immersion," (p. 263.) In another 
 case of drowning, ho says: " The Greek word bapiizo would 
 not hurt them more than the harmless English word dip, 
 were there an immediate emersion; and dip, if not followed 
 by an emersion, will be followed by death as its consequence, 
 as well as haptizo ; and the latter may be followed by emer- 
 sion as well as the former. The continuation under water 
 is not here expressed by the verb in question," (p. 286.) 
 
 Baptists have good reason to do their best with this case, 
 both to get droioning out of it and to get dippijig into it. 
 They could have no bolder or abler representative in making 
 such attempt than Dr. Carson. How has he succeeded? 
 The fact of drowning is so ingrained in the narrative of the 
 baptism, that even a Carson will not attempt to eliminate it. 
 The best that he can do, is to try and divorce it from fiaTzriZo). 
 The basis of this endeavor lies in the assumed identification 
 between a baptism and a dipping. This assumption per- 
 vades, like a fretting leprosy, all his writings, and utterly 
 vitiates them, notwithstanding much that is true, for the end 
 for which they are designed. In reply to the statement that 
 "Aristobulus was several times dipped,'' we reply, Aristobu- 
 lus was not " dipped " once. There was no act of " dipping " 
 performed. He was in the water, under the water, except 
 his head. That, his murderers did not dip, but " pressed 
 
68 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 down." The act of pressing down does not nvolve any 
 raising up; nor did these murderers volunteer any such addi- 
 tion. It would not have answered their purpose. If the 
 head of Aristobulus ever got, again, above the water, into 
 which it was "pressed down," he must get it there himself 
 as he best could. He will have neither deed nor wish from 
 Herod's assassins to help him. But not only does " pressing 
 down " involve no talcing out, and ia thus alien from dip, 
 neither does it involve any limitation of continuance within 
 the water, and is, thus, again shown to be foreign in its nature 
 from that word. Two things are evident in the narrative. 
 1. Aristobulus was not "pressed down" suflBciently long, 
 the first time, to sufibcate him ; this would have betrayed the 
 murderous intent. 2.^Ie was "pressed down" sufficiently 
 deep, and kept under water sufficiently long, to cause partial 
 exhaustion. A repetition of such "sport" (on one who was 
 each time less able to recover himself) soon produced the 
 legitimate effect of a "pressing down" baptism. He was 
 drowned. But, Dr. Carson says, "It was not the word bap- 
 tizo which destroyed him. It was the keeping him too long 
 under the water after immersion." Is it naivetd most charm- 
 ing, or acuteness most marvellous, which makes this sugges- 
 tion ? In whose service and at whose behest is " pressing 
 down," acting? Is it notthat of /5a'rr{C<«? When " pressing 
 down" puts the unhappy High Priest under water, does 
 ^oktIZu} object ? When it keeps him " under water too long " 
 for life, does ^arizi^w object ? If the maxim quifacit per alium 
 facit per se, be true, this Greek cannot enter the plea — not 
 guilty, 
 
 " Died from being buried by the fall of a sandbank," says 
 the coroner's jury. " Wrong," says the critic, " ' being buried ' 
 did not kill him, it was the remaining too long under the 
 sand ! " " Guilty of murder by cutting the man's throat," 
 says the verdict. "ISTo/' answers the criminal, "cutting the 
 throat does not kill, it is pressing the knife in too deeply ! " 
 "Drowned by baptism in a pool," says Josephus. "JSTo," 
 says Carson, "not by baptism, but by being kept too long 
 under water t " Just as though the "keeping underwater 
 
BAPTISxMS FOR INFLUENCE. 69 
 
 too long" was not the very alpha and omega of the baptism 
 designed, and as though a baptism was not chosen rather 
 than a dipping, because under the one they could "keep him 
 too long under the water" to live, and by the other they 
 could not. 
 
 Dr. Carson adds farther, " Dip, if not followed by an emer- 
 sion, will cause death as well as baptize." The supposition 
 is an impossible one. Emersion belongs to dip as really as 
 immersion. Immersion without emersion is not a dipping. 
 On the other hand, baptism has nothing to do with an emer- 
 sion, lli^ever since ^anriZu) existed, did it take out of the water 
 what it put into it. In whatever case a baptized object has 
 been removed from a state of baptism, the removal was never 
 effected, directly or indirectly, by ^aizri^m. The assassins 
 baptized Aristobulus. Aristobulus recovered himself out of 
 this state of baptism without help from them. Again they 
 baptized him; and again he recovered himself. At length, 
 too much exhausted to struggle more, he remained in that 
 state of baptism into which he was brought by Herod's com- 
 mand, and perished. Emersion in this case was an accident 
 and foreign to the word; drowning was the natural and 
 necessary consequence, except through foreign intervention 
 to prevent its occurrence. Just as soon as this foreign inter- 
 vention (the struggles of Aristobulus) ceased, the baptism 
 bore its legitimate fruit, and Herod was a murderer. 
 
 Unless Baptists can find some happier case than this by 
 which to convert a baptism into a dipping, their labor will 
 receive but poor reward. 
 
 2. "And there, being mersed in the pool by the Galatians 
 according to command, he died." 
 
 This is a second allusion to this same murder. It differs 
 from the former in omitting to give any form of act by which 
 the baptism was effected. In the absence of such informa- 
 tion, imagination might exhaust itself in vain attemj)ts to 
 learn the facts of the case. So far is it from being true, that 
 the Greek word is, in such matter, its own expositor; there 
 is absolutely no help to be derived from it to learn the defi- 
 
70 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 nite act by which any baptism is secured. Such knowledge 
 must come from other quarters. Had the "Antiquities" of 
 Josephus perished, this statement in his "War" would have 
 left us hopelessly in the dark, as to the act employed by the 
 assassins in the baptism of Aristobulus. 
 
 This passage, also, leads to the remark, that Josephus had 
 other ideas than Carson entertained as to the legitimate force 
 of a baptism. The historian says, "being mersed he died." 
 The defender of the Baptist theory says, " baptize does not 
 hurt anybody, it is being kept too long under water!" It 
 would seem that Josephus thought that this baptism em- 
 braced the " too long under water." Neither Jew nor Greek 
 ever wrote "being dipj^cd, he died." This baptism was for 
 the sake of its deadly influence. 
 
 3. "As, also, I esteem a pilot most cowardly, who, fearing 
 a storm, should voluntarily rnerse his ship before the tempest 
 came." 
 
 This is part of an argument by Josephus against suicide 
 in times of impending peril. He says, that self-murder, to 
 avoid peril, is not manlike, but cowardly, as the action of a 
 pilot who should sink his ship for fear of a storm. As to 
 the particular form of act by which the vessel was to be 
 brought to the bottom of the sea, the Orator gives us no in- 
 formation, anymore than he informs us by what form of act 
 the suicide was to kill himself. To kill, expresses a very 
 definite result to be accomplished, but does not throw one 
 ray of light on a thousand definite acts equally competent to 
 reach that result. To merse, expresses a very definite result 
 to be effected ; but it is dumb with silence as to the form of 
 act by which it may be accomplished. We must, then, re- 
 main forever in ignorance whether this pilot was to baptize 
 his ship by running her against a rock, by carrying too much 
 sail, by turning her broadside to the rising wave, by unship- 
 ping her rudder, by scuttling her, or in whatever other con- 
 ceivable method the end could be accomplished. Certain is 
 it, we appeal in vain to ^aitzi'^u) to instruct us on this point. 
 Or, if Baptists can extract a definite act from this word, and 
 
FIGURE GROUNDED IN DESTRUCTIVE MERSION. 71 
 
 illuminate the quo modo of this pilot baptism, it must be 
 through some secret in philological chemistry to which we 
 have not yet attained. 
 
 This comparison by Josephus of a suicide to this mersing 
 pilot may help us to understand some other cases of mersion. 
 The points of comparison pair off thus: self-murderer and 
 pilot; life and ship; suffering and tempest; death and mer- 
 sion; Does any one doubt, that the point of accord in the 
 first pair is that of control^ wielded by the suicide over life 
 and by the pilot over his ship; in the second pair, the stakes 
 at issue; in the third pair, the sources of dread; and in the 
 fourth pair, what ? a likeness between death and a dipping? 
 between death and enveloping water ? or, between the destruc- 
 tion of " life " however effected, and the destruction of the 
 " ship " however effected ? 
 
 Will any one in his sober senses think of bringing into 
 view the means to these ends, a sword in the one case, a 
 watery envelopment in the other ? Is not the comparison 
 wholly exclusive of such things, and exhausted by the naked 
 idea oi destruction, caused in the one case by a sword, and in 
 the other by encompassing waters, and agreeing in nothing 
 but their power of destruction ? If this be so, then, we may 
 find in other cases, that "mersion" stands neither for envel- 
 opment, nor definite act, but as the representative of destruc- 
 tion. Certainly this ship-mersion was a baptism for influence. 
 
 FIGUEE GEOUNDED IN DESTEUOTIVE MEESION. 
 
 1. "Qanep ^aTiTiZofiivrjq v£u)q dTvevijjfovro rrjq TtoXecoq. 
 
 Jewish War, ii, 20. 
 
 2. Tou0 (OffTrep reXeuraia ObeXXa ^ecixa^oixivouq Tobq veavcffxouq iirt^dnrias. 
 
 Jewish War, i, 27. 
 
 1. As from a ship being mersed, swam away from the city. 
 
 2. This, as a last storm, overmersed the tempest-beaten young 
 
 men. 
 
72 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 PAETICULAE CASES EXAMINED. 
 FIGURE WITH MERSION. 
 
 1. " Many of the distinguished Jews, as from a ship being 
 mersed, swam away from the city." 
 
 The Romans having raised the siege of Jerusalem and re- 
 treated, some of its principal citizens availed themselves of 
 the opportunity to make their escape. The condition of the 
 city, at this time, is represented by the historian as most 
 hopeless, and likened to a ship on the point of being swal- 
 lowed up in the sea. The comparison thus instituted between 
 the condition of the city being ruined, and the condition of 
 a ship being swallowed up, leads to the use of a word ("to 
 swim away") expressive of method of escape, well adapted 
 to one member of the comparison, a ship, but not appro- 
 priate, in its form of movement, to the other, a city. 
 
 "To swim" is not limited to application to movement 
 through water, — " She swam across the room." But such 
 smooth, gliding movement is not adapted to express the move- 
 ment with which men fly from impending ruin. Are we, then, 
 to understand the writer, by the use of this term and by the 
 comparison with a ship, to intend that his readers should 
 conceive of Jerusalem as encompassed by a waste of waters, 
 into which its citizens are leaping and "swimming away?" 
 Is such a picture, drawn by a brush dipped into " swimming 
 away," anything else than most ridiculous ? Let us make 
 another application of this method of interpretation. In this 
 same paragraph, this escape from the city is represented 
 as a "flying away." Shall we now, on the strength of this 
 term, make another draft on our imaginations, and taking 
 these eminent citizens from the watery element, substitute 
 wings for fins, while we gaze in rapt admiration as they launch 
 away from the crumbling battlements, and " fly" to some far- 
 off region of repose? " Ran away" is used to describe this 
 same flight. Does this word shut us up to the spectacle of 
 a race against time, running on foot or on horseback ? Or, 
 is the wealth of imagination to be displayed by the concep- 
 
FIGURE WITH MERSION. 73 
 
 tion of a picture in which all these features are artistically 
 grouped ; having war-shattered Jerusalem for its centre, en- 
 compassing waters for its field, citizens "running" through 
 its shallows, citizens "swimming" through its depths, citi- 
 zens "flying" through the air — is this the picture? 
 
 Does this seem to be only an amusing extravagance ? 
 
 It is a simple representation of Baptist " figure," which 
 demands that a word, not used in its primary sense, should 
 carry with it, in such use, all that pertains to its primary ap- 
 plication. Thus, Dr. Carson insists that "figure" shall take 
 up the " baptized coast," and dip it into the sea; for though 
 it is not dipped, yet it must be dipped by imagination, be- 
 cause " the word means dip, and nothing but dip." And the 
 "baptized" drunkard must, by "figure," be put into wine; 
 for although putting into wine won't make anybody drunk, 
 yet " the word means dip, and nothing but dip," and in he 
 must go. And the "baptized" debtor must, by " figure," 
 go into the water, sinking with a load on his shoulders, be- 
 cause " the word means dip, and nothing but dip." Such 
 doctrine, requiring a word to carry everywhere all the fea- 
 tures entering into original use, whether applicable or inap- 
 plicable, reminds one of the old lady who could not visit her 
 next neighbor without carrying along her " big box and 
 little box, bandbox and bundle." The doctrine of Sir "Wil- 
 liam Hamilton is better conformed to fact and the exigencies 
 of the case, — "All languages, by the same word, express a 
 multitude of thoughts, more or less difi'ering from each other. 
 We are obliged, from the context, from the tenor, and from 
 the general analogy of the discourse, to determine the mean- 
 ing." Kow, when the terms "swim away," "flj^ away," 
 " run away," each denoting, originally, a definite form of 
 movement, (one through water, one through air, and one over 
 the face of the earth,) are applied to the flight of citizens 
 from an imperilled city, shall we insist on the definite move- 
 ment of each, or merge them in the idea, io escajje, which is 
 common to them all? To " swim away" from a ship indi- 
 cates the use of the last means for safety; to " swim away" 
 from a city suggests, not the modal use of arms and legs, 
 
74 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 but a resort to extreme means for getting away. So " to fly 
 away," " to run away," do not shut up to mode of depar- 
 ture, but we may take out of both of them the single element 
 of " rapidity of movement," rejecting everything else, and 
 apply it as the case may require. 
 
 In the passage before us, the mersion has nothing to do, 
 directly, with the city. The figure centres in the destruction 
 common to ship and city, with the anxiety of sailors in the 
 one ease, and of citizens in the other, to escape being in- 
 volved in that destruction ; it does not reach either to the 
 nature or the means of the destruction. The figure does 
 not involve the city in any water envelopment. The ship 
 perishes ; the city perishes. Ruin, and escape from ruin, 
 begin and end " the figure." 
 
 The figure involves a destructive mersion, and, therefore, 
 has nothing in common with a dipping. 
 
 2. " This, as a last storm, overmersed the tempest-beaten 
 young men." 
 
 These young men were the sons of Herod, whom he had 
 long threatened with death, under the idea that they were 
 plotting against him. They had, however, escaped, until 
 accusation was made by Salome, Herod's wife and their 
 mother-in-law, under which, " as a last storm," they lost 
 their lives. 
 
 The passage presents, what is rare, a distinct and well- 
 sustained picture figure, with mersion as a leading element. 
 Aristobulus and Alexander, sons of Herod by Mariamne, 
 became, after their mother's death, objects of suspicion, ac- 
 cusations, and plottings, with a view to compass their de- 
 struction. Josephus indicates this condition of things, when 
 he speaks of them as tempest-tossed and weather-beaten. 
 They suffered from these influences, but lived. Salome ef- 
 fected their destruction. These facts suggest a resemblance 
 to a ship which has weathered many storms, but, at last, 
 goes down under one of resistless power. 
 
 The points of comparison are plain : 1. The young men 
 and ship with her crew. 2. Various evil machinations and 
 
FIGURE WITH MERSION. 75 
 
 frequent storms. 3. Salome's accusation and the final storm. 
 4. Death and baptism. 
 
 "What demands attention here, as bearing upon our in- 
 quiry, is: 1. The absence of all show of comparison between 
 any act on the one hand and on the other. 2. The same 
 lack of comparison between any condition on the one side 
 and condition of envelopment on the other. 
 
 It it be asked. Is there not " envelopment" in baptism? 
 I answer. Yes, in every primary baptism ; but that does 
 not carry "envelopment" into a comparison. Envelopment 
 may be the end of a baptism, as when I put a stone within 
 water, or it may be only a means to an end, as when Aris- 
 tobulus is put within water by assassins. "When, therefore, 
 I use baptism as a comparison, I may use simply the idea 
 of envelopment, or I may reject entirely the envelopment, 
 and limit the comparison to the result of envelopment. This 
 has been done in the present case. There is no comparison 
 between the direct means causing the death of these young 
 men, whatever it was, and the direct means causing the de- 
 struction of the ship, which was envelopment by water; but 
 the comparison is between the indirect means, namely, Sa- 
 lome's accusation and the final storm. Thus, envelopment 
 is left out of view, and its result — remediless destruction — 
 is brought into the foreground. 
 
 A.8 used in this passage, ^aizriZo) speaks, directly, of de- 
 struction. " This accusation caused these suffering young 
 men to perish^ as a final storm causes a weather-beaten ship 
 to perish." The quo modo of perishing, in the one case or 
 the other, however well they may be understood, are not in 
 the comparison. Figurative use of words often lights up, 
 resplendently, their literal use. ^We are here, distinctly, 
 taught that ^a-KziZot may be used to express, directly, the result 
 of mersion. 
 
 This is a truth of the first importance, and utterly repu- 
 diated by the Baptist theory. To escape it, they prefer to 
 adopt all sorts of grotesque imaginings shrouded in nonde- 
 script " figure." 
 
76 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 LITEEAL, SECONDAKT USE. 
 
 CONDITION WITHOUT INTUSPOSITION — INFLUENCE PERVADING AND 
 CONTROLLING, UNLIMITED IN FORM, FORCE, OR TIME. 
 
 BAPTISM WITHOUT MERSION. 
 
 1. 'ETZi^aizriffeiv yap abrbv tyjV rcoXiv. Jewish War, iii, 7. 
 
 2. 0% 8ij xai Si^a rvjq ardacwq uarspov ij^dnnffav rijw ■koXvj. 
 
 Jewish War, iv, 3. 
 
 3. "Ars ^anriZoixsvou roXr: k-Tziuuai roo Xoyiaixoo. Fhilo, EuseMuS. 
 
 1. For he, himself, would overmerse the city. 
 
 2. Who, independently of the sedition, afterwards mersed the 
 
 city. 
 
 3. As though the reason were mersed by the things coming 
 
 upon it. 
 
 Baptism of the City of Jotapaia. 
 
 1. "It did not become him, either to fly from enemies, 
 or to abandon friends ; nor to leap ofij as from a ship over- 
 taken by a storm, into which he had entered in fair weather; 
 that he would, himself, overmerse the cit}^, as no one would 
 longer dare to make resistance to the enemy when he was 
 gone through whom their courage was sustained." 
 
 Josephus, besieged in Jotapata, purposed, after the de- 
 fence became hopeless, to escape, thinking that he might, 
 on some other field, be of more service to his country. The 
 citizens objected in the language above quoted. 
 
 A first glance at the passage might convey the impression 
 that ^aizriZio was used in picture figure. A closer examina- 
 tion would, however, correct such impression. There is, in- 
 deed, figure in the passage, but it is limited to a compari- 
 son between the city unassailed by enemies (when Josephus 
 came to it) and a ship in a calm, and between the city as- 
 sailed by enemies (when Josephus talks of leaving) and a 
 ship in a storm. This is all the figure. 
 
 The subsequent use of ^anriZw^ most probably, was sug- 
 gested by this figure ; but it is not itself figurative; certainly 
 
BAPTISM OF THE CITY OF JOTAPATA. 77 
 
 not in any Baptist sense. It is intolerable to suppose that a 
 city is figured, through the departure of an individual, as 
 dipped into water, immersed in the sea, overwhelmed by a 
 flood, or sunk in the ocean. Such extravagances, in full 
 statement. Baptist writers are careful to keep out of view. 
 They content themselves with a vague reference to the vague 
 term "figure," and then vaguely translate by some word 
 made vague in its import by a double use. Dr. Conant calls 
 it " figure," and translates overwhelm. But this word has a 
 double use, in one of which neither water-floods, nor cover- 
 ing can be found. 
 
 " Long beards, long noses, and pale faces, 
 They overwhelm me with the spleen." 
 
 Do " beards," " noses," " faces," let loose water-floods, or 
 envelop with anything ? 
 
 "Guilty and guiltless find an equal fate, 
 And one vast ruin whelm the Olympian state." 
 
 Can any human device convert "one vast ruin" into a 
 flood of water? Or, can this "Olympian state" be put, by 
 this language, into a state of envelopment ? 
 
 Dr. Conant, theoretically, uses " overwhelm " in one sense; 
 all his readers will understand it in another sense. 
 
 Dr, Carson translates '■^sink the city," in flat contradiction 
 of his reiterated and absolutely exclusive definition, — " dip, 
 and nothing but dip." But I must be careful how I call 
 ^^ dip — sink" a contradiction, lest I should be sprinkled with 
 "Attic salt." 
 
 This is only "figure;" one mode of action put for another! 
 A very convenient figure certainly. And, also, one meaning 
 put for another. For Dr. Carson does not mean that " sink" 
 shall either put the city into the sea or into the earth, but, 
 contrary to theory, is compelled to use it in its secondary 
 sense — to ruin. Hear his own language : " He would sink 
 or epibaptize the city. His desertion of the city would be 
 the means of its ruin. He is then represented as doing the 
 thing that would be the consequence of his departure," (p. 
 
78 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 98.) And this " ruin" is directly, and not figuratively, ex- 
 pressed by fdanzi'^a)^ deriving its power so to do from that de- 
 structive influence which is the so-common result of envel- 
 opment baptism. 
 
 The nut is cracked, the enveloping shell is worse than 
 useless, and thrown aside; while the kernel truth, adapted 
 to the case, is applied. 
 
 What these failures of Baptist writers indicate to be true 
 is proved to be so, indeed, by the language of the passage; 
 "He would overmerse — ruin — the city, because no one would 
 longer resist the enemy.'''' Then the epibaptism was to come 
 from the " enemy," not from an OYEv^whelming flood., nor from 
 the ship-city sinking in the sea. Figure would have required 
 their eflEbrts to be made against the storm, not against the 
 Romans. 
 
 The case is one of secondary use, — influence without en- 
 velopment. And no abandonment of dip for "flood" or 
 "sink" can save the Baptist theory from an epibaptism, as 
 ruinous as that which abandonment by Josephus would have 
 brought on Jotapata. 
 
 Bajytism of the City of Jerusalem. 
 
 2. " Who, independently of the sedition, afterward mersed 
 the city." 
 
 During the war between the Jews and the Romans, cer- 
 tain robber chiefs with their bands sought refuge in Jerusa- 
 lem, where they became the source of turmoil and sedition. 
 But these were not the only evils resulting from their pres- 
 ence. The provisions of the city were limited for a pro- 
 tracted siege, and these plundering and murderous bands, 
 consuming the food which might, otherwise, have sufficed 
 for the defenders of the cit}^, brought on famine, and thus, 
 without sedition, would have baptized — mersed — ruined — 
 the city. 
 
 Dr. Conant calls this " figure," and says : " This natural 
 and expressive image of trouble and distress occurs often in 
 the Old Testament. For example, Ps. 69:2, 'I am come 
 into deep waters, where the floods overflow me.' Verses 
 
BAPTISM OF THE CITY OF JERUSALEM. 79 
 
 14, 15 : 'Let me be delivered . . . out of the deep waters; 
 let not the water-flood overflow me.' Ps. 18 : 16, 17: 'He 
 drew me out of many waters; he delivered me from my 
 strong enemy.' Job's afflictions are expressed under the 
 same image (ch. 22 : 11) : ' The flood of waters covers me.' 
 Compare Ps. 124:4, 5; 144:7; 32:6; Ezek. 26:19." 
 
 A grand source of confusion and profitless result in the 
 Baptist controversy has been looseness in the statement of 
 principles, or looseness in the examination of the evidence 
 adduced to support those principles; sometimes looseness 
 in both these particulars. 
 
 The Baptist conception of the value of ISarcri^^co is a variable 
 quantity of the first degree. There is no harmony in the defi- 
 nition of the word, and there is still less harmony between 
 the definition and the evidence adduced to sustain it. 
 
 Consider for a moment the definition of ^ar^riZu) — " to dip, 
 and nothing but dip" — and then look at these quotations 
 adduced for its support. Is it not a reproach on a man's 
 sanity to ask him to accept the one in proof of the other? 
 If applying their own defining term, plunge, (as given on 
 other occasions,) to all cases of usage, makes their sentiments 
 " ridiculous," much more is the definition dip made ridicu- 
 lous in the midst of witnesses like these. 
 
 An ass in a lion's skin is a trifle in folly compared with 
 " dip" making a figure in the attire of " rushing torrents" 
 and "inundating floods." The zenith and the nadir will 
 come together sooner than such definition and such evidence 
 will be made to harmonize. 
 
 Again, there is a looseness in applying these " torrents 
 and floods" to baptism which needs to be corrected. A 
 torrent may efiect a baptism, and a flood may efi'ect a, bap- 
 tism ; but a torrent may sweep against one, and cause great 
 distress and peril, without causing a baptism; and one may 
 be in the midst of a flood, and be filled with anguish, in view 
 of a baptism within its waters, and yet escape uubaptized. 
 Timon's proposed victim had been swept away by a flood 
 of waters ; he was in distress and helpless as he was swept 
 by the torrent toward the bank where stood this hater of his 
 
80 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 race; but he was not baptized until this man-hater stopped 
 his ears to the cry: "I am come into deep waters;" "De- 
 liver me; let not the water-flood overflow me;" " Draw me 
 out of many waters ;" and, with heart which knew no sym- 
 pathy with his kind, baptized him, pressing his head, never 
 to rise again, beneath the waters. ISTow, this victim of Ti- 
 mon's went through all the experiences suggested by these 
 quotations of Dr. Conant before his baptism; this imagery 
 of water-floods is no image of baptism, but of peril, distress, 
 and anguish. Water-floods may issue in a baptism; they 
 do not do so necessarily; rushing waters and swelling floods, 
 therefore, are not imagery for baptism, but for troubles and 
 distresses which are always their accompaniments. Jonah's 
 ship, assailed by the tempest and the dashing billows, was 
 in distress, in peril, and " ready to be baptized ;" so that the 
 cry rang out above the howling of the storm : " Let us be 
 delivered out of the deep waters ; let not the water-flood 
 overflow us !" That picture — raging sea, bending masts, 
 tossing ship, praying crew — is the image of distress ; it is 
 not the image of a baptism. 
 
 Baptism is not an act done, nor something in transitu, but 
 a result reached; a state or condition accomplished. Herod's 
 sons were many times in peril and distress from plottings 
 and machinations (torrents and floods); but were never bap- 
 tized until Salome's accusation put them into their graves; 
 their baptisms calmed the troubled waters, as Jonah's bap- 
 tism stilled the tempest, and brought deliverance to the im- 
 perilled ship and crew. 
 
 These quotations from the Psalms, therofore, confound 
 things that differ. "Trouble and distress" are no more 
 baptism, than a tempest-tossed ship is a ship lying in the 
 depths of the sea. 
 
 If you would have imagery of baptism (in this direction), 
 you must not present imagery of suffering and peril, but of 
 ruin and death. And this conclusion brings, again, into bold 
 relief the entire incompetency of the Baptist theory to ac- 
 count for the usage of this word. 
 
 Let us, now, look at the passage itself. In doing this we 
 
BAPTISM OE THE CITY OP JERUSALEM. 81 
 
 are struck with the simplicity and straightforwardness of 
 the statement. Nothing could be more naked of all figura- 
 tive picturing, unless it be found in the naked word ^a-KziZo). 
 Baptist writers have long enough assumed the power of " the 
 word to find them water in a desert." They must give some 
 evidence of its power to flood Jerusalem. They will not 
 find such evidence in the passage. These robbers baptized 
 the Gity, not by letting loose an imaginary flood upon it, but 
 by eating up its provisions ! 
 
 This is Josephus's notion of a baptism, and under its in- 
 fluence the imaginative Baptist soaring on waxen wings is 
 brought back, very summarily, to the regions of common 
 sense. The provisions devoured, then comes famine, then 
 comes feebleness of defenders, then comes conquest, then 
 follows the flaming temple, and stone torn from stone, blank 
 ruin — profoundest baptism. 
 
 Most evidently does Josephus take the element of destruc- 
 tion, inhering in so many baptisms, and crowding that idea 
 into every letter of this word, to the rejection of all beside, 
 most directly aflirms, that " the robbers, hy inducing a famine, 
 baptized the city" — brought it into a state of utter ruin ! 
 
 I affirm baptism in water-floods more strongly than any 
 Baptist writer ever did, or ever can, with any show of con- 
 sistency with his theory; but I affirm that there is no more 
 water in ^aitTiZw, in this passage, than there hjire. There is 
 not the remotest hint, in word or thought, that water was 
 present to the mind of the writer. As for the word itself, 
 there is as much ^ire in it as there is water; and Dr. Conant 
 might as well have quoted the fiery baptism of Sodom and 
 Gomorrah, as the water-floods of the Psalms, to meet the 
 demands of the Greek word. Indeed, as there was more 
 fire, under the Roman torch, in the final baptism of Jerusa- 
 lem, than there was water, baptism by fire would seem to 
 have the right of precedence over water baptism. This is 
 certain, beyond all controversy, that the simple w*Drd ^anriZu) 
 gives no authority to introduce water into any baptism; 
 therefore, its introduction in any case, in fact or by imagina- 
 
 & 
 
82 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 tion, must bring justifying evidence from other source than 
 this word. 
 
 In the present case there is not one particle of such evi- 
 dence. On the other hand, we have the most perfect evidence, 
 from text and context, that utter destruction is the thought 
 in view; while we have no less complete evidence that (ianzi'^u) 
 is identified with results of destruction most absolute, and is 
 therefore qualified, on the present occasion, to express such 
 destruction. And this duty, we say, it does, in fact, here 
 perform. 
 
 Dr. Carson both approves and condemns this conclusion. 
 He says, " The immediate ruin of the aftairs of the city is the 
 only thing that is asserted. It asserts that the robbers ruined 
 or sunk the city." Carson cannot escape acknowledging, 
 that " ruin" is the thing declared. But how can the " ruin" 
 of a great city be got out of dip ? Why, not at all, as every- 
 body knows, and none better than Dr. C. ; " dip, and nothing 
 but dip," must, therefore, be metamorphosed into "sink," a 
 word radically differiug both in form and power. Conant 
 translates by " whelm," a word differing essentially from 
 both the others. This difierence of translation of a word 
 which is " the most facile in translation of all words, never 
 having but one meaning," arises from a fundamental difi^'er- 
 ence in the interpretation of the passage. Enough has been 
 said of Dr. Conant's view. Carson (p. 84) takes us out to sea, 
 and shows us " a ship sinking from being overburdened and 
 ill-managed in a storm from the dissensions of the crew," and 
 says, see there " a striking and beautiful figure" — of a city 
 baptized by famine ! ! ! 
 
 If the pinions of Dr. Carson's imagination had not been 
 sufiiciently strong to bear Jerusalem into mid ocean to sink 
 it, I have no doubt that he would have taken it to pieces, 
 stone by stone, and dijyped it in the pool of Bethesda. 
 
 This Baptist writer tells us the word, if applied to houses, 
 would show that it did not mean immerse, because houses 
 cannot be immersed, (p. 368.) But how so, when he thinks 
 nothing of taking all the houses of Jerusalem and giving 
 them a sinking-dip m a trice ? I think we must let Josephus 
 
BAPTISM BY GLUTTONY. 83 
 
 have his own way, and, rejecting flood and storm, accept the 
 robber baptism by famine, bringing the long-prophesied ruin 
 to the city. 
 
 Baptism of the Intellect by Gluttony. 
 
 3. " One might evidence it also by this, — the sober and 
 content are more intelligent, but those always filled with 
 drink and food are least intelligent, as though the reason 
 were mersed by the things coming upon it." 
 
 Philo was a Jew, living in the first century. He contrasts 
 in this passage the intellectual manifestation of those who 
 lead a frugal, with such as lead a gluttonous life, — vigor 
 characterizing the former and imbecility the latter. It is a 
 fact of universal experience, that excessive eating and drink- 
 ing exerts an unfavorable influence over intellectual devel- 
 opment. 
 
 Dr. Carson passes over this case. Had he noticed it, we 
 should, no doubt, have been treated to the " beautiful and 
 striking figure" of an overloaded ship sinking in storm or 
 calm ; or the glutton, in deep water, sinking under a burden 
 on his shoulders (it may be a wine-skin and a round of beef); 
 thus magnifying the powers of imagination, if not throwing 
 light on the usage of the word. 
 
 Dr. Conant translates by " whelm." Whether " the natu- 
 ral and expressive image" of water-floods is to be introduced 
 here, as in the previous case of " whelming," he does not 
 state. What light can be thrown upon the meaning of 
 ^aTtziZu) by dipping, or sinking, or whelming this glutton, in 
 fact or in figure, I have not enough of imagination to con- 
 ceive. If no such picturing is to be done, then we must look 
 for the baptism either in a literal envelopment, or give the 
 word direct power to express hurtful influence without en- 
 velopment. 
 
 Some might plead in favor of the first interpretation, that 
 the meat and drink are represented as " coming upon" the 
 reason. In that case, the reason would have to lie at the 
 bottom of 'he stomach, while eataoles and potables came 
 down upon it. No doubt a baptism could be so effected ; 
 
84 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 for Dr. Fuller says, a man who lies on the sea-slicre will be 
 baptized by the waves "coming upon" him. As to this 
 baptism, I have only to confess that the brains of some people 
 seem to be very closely connected with the epigastric region. 
 My preference, however, is for the other baptism. 
 
 I accept the statement as simple and direct in both cases : 
 " The reason is affected beneficially by temperance, while it 
 is baptized — influenced injuriously — by gluttony." Does any 
 one doubt the truth of the sentiment? Does any one doubt 
 that (iaizri'Coj may, legitimately, acquire such power of utter- 
 ance from connection with baptisms where hurtful influence 
 has a necessary, yet secondary place (because only a conse- 
 quence), but now brought forward, in new circumstances, 
 into a primary position ? 
 
 Such interpretation must stand until the negative of these 
 questions is established. 
 
 TO BAPTIZE— TO MAKE DKUNK. 
 
 APPROPRIATION. 
 
 Olda di rivaq, oT, inscMv axpoOiopaxeq yivwvrai, Ttpiv reXiwq (ianriffdr^vm. 
 
 Philo, ii, 478. On Contemp. Life. 
 
 I know some, who, when they become slightly intoxicated, before 
 they become thoi'oughly drunk. 
 
 Baptism by Wine-drinking. 
 
 "I know some, who, when they become slightly intoxi- 
 cated, before they become thoroughly drunk, make provision 
 for to-morrow's drinking by contribution and tickets." 
 
 Such use of [iar.riZu) is to be regarded as proof that this 
 word had secured to itself the power to express, directly, the 
 influence of wine-drinking, — to make drunk. 
 
 1. The ground of this conclusion is found in prevailing 
 and persistent usage of the same phraseology and with the 
 same application. 
 
TO BAPTIZE — TO MAKE DRUNK. 85 
 
 In Classic Baptism (p. 317), will be fonud the following 
 quotations : " You seem to be made drunk (baptized) by un- 
 mixed* wine." " Then making drunk (baptizing), he set me 
 free." " Having made drunk (baptized), Alexander by much 
 wine." "Wine ma Ae5<irM?z^ (baptizes)." "I am one of those 
 made drunk (baptized), yesterday." " Making themselves drunk 
 (baptizing), out of great wine-jars." " Made drank (baptized), 
 by yesterday's debauch." " Kot yet made drunk (baptized)." 
 These quotations are from various writers, separated from 
 each other, geographically, widely, and extending through 
 a space of time exceeding five centuries. In addition to this 
 the fact (drunkenness) to which the word was applied being 
 of daily occurrence, and extending from generation to gene- 
 ration, it could not but be, that any word used to designate 
 it must be in continual use. This is, farther, shown to be 
 true from the form of use. It is employed absolutely, Avith- 
 out any helping adjunct, and without the shadow of stated 
 or designed figure. Unless the word was in familiar use, it 
 would be unintelligible when thus thrown upon its power of 
 self-explanation. But it had, most clearly, such self-explain- 
 ing power. And now, if all other usage of ^ar.Ti^o) were 
 blotted out of the Greek language, this usage would live, 
 having life in itself, and proclaim from every passage — make 
 drunk ! 
 
 2. Proof of this meaning is found in the fact, that the word 
 is not only self-explanatory, but is capable of being used, in 
 this well-understood sense, in explanation of what was less 
 intelligible. 
 
 "When an old man drinks of the fountain, and Silenus 
 takes possession of him, immediately, he is for a long time 
 silent, and resembles one heavy-headed and drunk (bap- 
 tized.)" (Classic Baptism, p. 330.) Here [^aTzriZco is used by 
 Lucian, as possessed of a meaning so unmistakable, that he 
 considers it quite sufiicient, in expounding something not 
 understood, to say, "it resembles one baptized." Who will 
 say, this is figure, and means that one who drinks of the Si- 
 lenic fount is like one dipped in water, whelmed by a water- 
 flood, or sunk in the sea ? All retreat under cloudy figure, 
 
86 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 here, is gone. There is but one meaning possible. The 
 effects of drinking Silenic water are like the effects of drink- 
 ing wine. The effects of what is not understood are ex- 
 plained by that which is well understood. Let any man who 
 never had explanation of this wonderful fountain, ask Lucian, 
 what is the effect on the drinker ? and his answer is, — like 
 that of wine; which makes a man "heavy-headed and drunk." 
 How the theory of "dipping, and nothmg but dipping, 
 through all G-reek literature," can survive such usage, is for 
 others to determine. 
 
 3. Proof of this meaning is found in the meaning of the 
 associated and contrasted word, — axpodwpaxeq. 
 
 This word, in its philology, has nothing more to do with 
 wine-drinking than has ^annZo. It means " slightly armed," 
 or breast armed. Yet, Dr. Couant does not hesitate to trans- 
 late it — "slightly intoxicated" — while the contrasted word, 
 ^oKTiZui, which every rational consideration requires to be 
 translated — excessively intoxicated — he beclouds by translating 
 — whelm. 
 
 If there be one half of the evidence for translating the 
 former of these two words by "slight intoxication," that 
 there is for translating the latter by excessive intoxication, I 
 do not know where it is to be found. Reference may be 
 made to Aristotle iii Prob. 2, Erotianus OnomasL, Plutarch 
 Sf/mpos., Mercurialis iv 6 Yar. Lect., and Clem. Alex, i, 
 416, in support of the meaning. And there may be other 
 authority; but this is enough. And, if so, why not the more 
 numerous authorities, and the more varied evidence, suffice 
 to establish the meaning of PanriXo), however diverse from 
 bare philology ? This association of these terms causes them 
 to react, the one upon the other, in confirming to each, re- 
 spectively, the meaning attributed to it. 
 
 4. Proof of this meaning is found in its harmony with the 
 laws of language-development. 
 
 "Words have a life like that of the vine. They send forth 
 branches, which may be either a simple extension of all the 
 peculiarities of the parent stem, with entire dependence upon 
 it; or, still retaining their connection, they may, like the 
 
TO BAPTIZE TO MAKE DRUNK. 87 
 
 vine-branch whose extremity is turned down and planted in 
 the ground, make an additional source of life for themselves; 
 or, yet farther, all dependence on the parent stem may be 
 severed, and, rooted in the ground, they make a new and 
 independent source of life for themselves, with peculiarities 
 which may be propagated still farther. When we say, the 
 child grows, the plant grows, the population grows, there is 
 but an extension of the same conception. The man runs, the 
 locomotive runs, the river runs, the steamer runs, the watch 
 runs, the candidate runs, are phrases which show not merely 
 an extension of the original thought, but, also, that each has 
 established a root for itself amid the elements of thought. 
 To dip, to dye, shows not nierely an extension of the original 
 act, or the formation of an additional root, but the dissolu- 
 tion of all organic relation and the establishment of an inde- 
 pendent life with the power of procreation. 
 
 JSTow, as fidnru) gave origin to dye, through the coloring-vat, 
 so ^oKTiZui gave origin to controlling influence, through mersion 
 of particular objects, and with this new power applied to wine- 
 drinking, it did, by appropriation, advance to the definite 
 and direct expression of such influence in the fullest degree; 
 proclaiming every baptized wine-drinker to be made drunk. 
 
 5. Proof is found in the impracticability of any rational 
 introduction of figure. 
 
 Imagination can do a great deal ; but much that it does is 
 without the sanction of right reason. To expound the pas- 
 sage under consideration. Dr. Conant uses the following lan- 
 guage : " To overwhelm (figuratively) with an intoxicating 
 liquor, or a stupefying drug, that takes full possession of 
 one's powers, like a resistless flood ; or, (as the figure may 
 sometimes be understood,) to steep in, as by immersing in a 
 liquid." In what way, or in what measure, this language 
 throws light upon the case before us, I cannot say; for, to 
 me, it is much less intelligible than what it is intended to 
 expound. Does Dr. Conant mean by " overwhelm, figura- 
 tively," that a mental picture is to be sketched of wine-casks, 
 with bursting heads, pouring forth a vinous flood, by which 
 the drunkard is overwhelmed and swept away ? Does he 
 
88 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 mean by a " stupefying drug," a liquid, or a solid ? Is stupe- 
 faction by ''figurative overwhelming," accomplished by laud- 
 anum as a sweeping torrent, or by opium as a falling and 
 crushing mass ? Whether Dr. C.'s good sense will repudiate 
 sach figuring as this, (in which the luxuriant imaginations 
 of other Baptist writers find delight,) I am quite at a loss to 
 determine from his language. 
 
 What is the meaning of " intoxicating liquor or a stupefy- 
 ing drug taking full possession of one's powers, like a resist- 
 less flood,'" I am equally at a loss to understand. That "a 
 resistless flood takes possession of one's powers," is a state- 
 ment of fact that I do not remember ever before to have met 
 with; and if I had, I should still have been "at sea" in at- 
 tempting to imagine the foundation in nature for such lan- 
 guage. Wines and drugs " take possession " of our faculties; 
 overwhelming torrents and floods sweep them away. " To 
 take possession" cannot be likened to "sweeping away." 
 " Wines and drugs," therefore, cannot be likened, in their 
 effects any more than in their forms, to " torrents and floods." 
 
 But, Dr. Conant does not seem to be settled in his own 
 mind as to the nature or form of this "figurative overwhelm- 
 ing." We are told that "the figure may sometimes be un- 
 derstood, to steep in, as by immersing in a liquid." Is it 
 intended by the emphatic "steep 2?i" and "immerse in a 
 liquid," to necessitate the imagining of the drunkard put into 
 wine, and of the stupefied put into an opiate? Or, is the re- 
 iterated inness to be disregarded and effects only to be re- 
 garded ? But why is the overwhelming limited to a " liquid?" 
 Does Dr. Conant doubt, that a man can be overwhelmed, 
 baptized, by chewing solid opium, as well as by drinking its 
 alcoholic extract in the shape of laudanum ? In the case of 
 the baptized opium-chewer must we fall back for exposition 
 of this word to "a resistless flood?" 
 
 If good sense is too much shocked by such imaginations 
 and such inconsistencies, and affirms, that all that is meant 
 is, the controlling influence exerted by wines and opiates on the 
 one side, and floods and torrents on the other, rejecting the 
 modus, .in the one case and in the other, as having nothing 
 
TO BAPTIZE — TO MAKE DRUNK. 89 
 
 m common, then I ask, whether the Baptist theory has not 
 been rejected, whether it be made to rest on the sine qua non 
 of a dipping, or of an intusposition? And 1 further ask, 
 whether a secondary meaning has not been established — 
 controlling influence — with form of act and inness of position, 
 eliminated ? And this being granted, what escape is there 
 from the meaning (through appropriation to the influence of 
 wine-drinking) make drunk ? 
 
 The reference to Basil — Discourse against Drunkards, iii, 
 p. 452 : " So also the souls of these are driven about beneath 
 the waves, being baptized by wine " — is of no value as a 
 model for the interpretation of this and similar passages. 
 If Basil chooses to get up a storm at sea, and depict helpless 
 wretches tossed from billow to billow, while held under their 
 power, unable to escape, to show the miserable results of 
 luxurious living, or of excessive drinking, and to base upon 
 it the conclusion, that no less overmastering and destructive 
 is the power of wine over its votaries, he is at full liberty to 
 do so; but, surely, they have no less liberty who choose to 
 speak in unadorned language, and to declare, without a sea- 
 storm, that wine drunk has the power to make drunk. If it 
 should please any one to write, " As the rising sun enlightens 
 the world, dissipating the darkness of the night, scattering 
 its morning mists and lighting up its valleys, so education 
 enlightens a people, dispelling the darkness and doubts and 
 errors of ignorance," must we, therefore, find in the sober 
 utterance — " he is enlightened by education," all this play of 
 the imagination ? Just as much as in the statement, " I was 
 yesterday baptized — made drunk — by wine," we must find 
 the sea-storm of Basil, or the dipping, or whelming, or steep- 
 ing of Baptist interpreters. Basil's figure is Comparison, 
 ours is Metaphor. Ifo picturing can be rationally deduced 
 from such direct and naked statements as those before us. 
 
 6. Proof may be found in Baptist translations. 
 
 Conant translates, — "Whelm — overwhelm with wine." 
 Both these words are continually used to express the highest 
 degree of influence without suggesting or thinking of covering 
 the object. Whether "covering" was in the mind of Dr. 
 
90 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 C, or not, I cannot tell; but very few of his readers will feel 
 themselves called upon, by this language, to tax their imagi- 
 nations to find " covering " for the drunkard. Besides, the 
 phrase " overwhelmed with wine " is incomplete. It is ad- 
 mitted, on all hands, that drunkenness is the ultimate thought 
 designed to be expressed. But drunkenness can only be 
 induced in one way — by drinking ; this, then, being under- 
 stood, {ex necessitate rei,) it is unexpressed, according to the 
 law of ellipsis, which omits that which is most essential, and 
 which, therefore, can never fail to be supplied. If a man is 
 overwhelmed with wine bi/ drinking, he is not overwhelmed 
 by it as a wine billow. The translation can only express in- 
 fluence, without covering. 
 
 But Dr. Carson says, (p. 311,) "The classical meaning of 
 the word is in no instance overwhelm." " Literally it is im- 
 mersed in wine " (p. 79.) Two such combatants as Conant 
 and Carson, the champions of contradictory meanings of 
 ^aTTTt'Cfw, the one having emblazoned on his shield a rushing 
 torrent for whelming, the other a still pool for dipping, 
 would present a field of contest which, for hard blows, might 
 be expected to compare well with " the gentle passage of 
 arms at Ashby." But Dr. Carson having put the drunkard 
 in wine, does, incontinently, take him out, declaring that 
 the point of resemblance is not in the immersion at all, "but 
 between a man completely under the influence of wine, and 
 an object completely subjected to a liquid in which it is 
 wholly immersed," (p. 80.) "There is no likeness between 
 the action of drinking and immersion," (p. 79.) "The like- 
 ness is between their effects," (p. 272.) Let us bring this 
 likeness to a more definite point. Is wine-influence resem- 
 bled to the influence exerted by immersion over any partic- 
 ular object, — a stone, a ship, a bag of salt, a human being? 
 As the influence in each of these cases differs, the resem- 
 blance cannot be specific ; and if you eliminate that which 
 is specific, you have an abstract controlling influence. We 
 are, then, under the leadership of these Baptist translators, 
 brought to this conclusion, — that there is a usage of ^anrt^co 
 in which resemblance rejects mode of action, rejects immer- 
 
TO BAPTIZE — TO MAKE DRUNK. 91 
 
 sion, rejects specific influence, and reveals an abstract con- 
 trolling influence. Their statement, then, is this : "A man 
 completely under the influence of wine is a baptized man, 
 because he is like an object completely subjected to a liquid 
 in which it is wholly immersed — in so far as it is subjected 
 to some controlling influence." A rather roundabout way of 
 reaching the truth, but better such way than not at all. 'Now, 
 this "controlling influence," in its abstract conception, elim- 
 inated from the primary use, we say, becomes concrete in a 
 secondary use of ^aTzri^w, capable of being conjoined with 
 any word susceptible of exerting such influence, and without 
 carrying with it "form of action," or "intusposition," any 
 more than speciflc influence, all of which have been sloughed 
 off", when it assumed its abstract garb. 
 
 The application of this word, (expressive of such secondary 
 sense,) to a particular case in which the influence was inva- 
 riably the same, would, necessarily, make it expressive of 
 such influence. The list of influences which are single and 
 invariable is but limited, — joy, grief, riches, poverty, honor, 
 shame, learning, ignorance, and innumerable other sources 
 of influence, do not belong to the list. Wine does; its in- 
 fluence, as a drink, is one and invariable ; the controlling 
 influence of wine — to be baptized by wine- — therefore, can 
 convey but one meaning, — to make drunk. 
 
 The examination of this passage has been thus particular, 
 not on its own account, so much, as, being entirely removed 
 from all direct bearing on Christian baptism, it affords a 
 more favorable opportunity for the discussion of principles, 
 than in a case where prejudice might be supposed to dis- 
 qualify for an impartial examination. Novelties adduced 
 to meet exigencies are suspicious. 
 
92 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 BAPTISM BY DRUNKENNESS. 
 
 VERBAL FIGURE. 
 
 Kai ^e^aTTTifffiivov e^c d.vaia6rjffiav xai unvov Otco T^q fii6rjq. 
 
 Jewish Antiq.. x, 9. 
 
 And baptized (mersed) by drunkenness into insensibility and 
 sleep. 
 
 Baptism into Insensibility and Sleep. 
 
 " Seeing him in this state, and baptized into insensibility 
 and sleep by drunkenness, Isbmael leaping up, with his ten 
 friends, slays Gedaliah and those reclining with him in the 
 drinking-party." 
 
 Gedaliah was appointed to be governor over the remnant 
 of the Jews after their conquest by the king of Babylon. 
 This office he administered with great consideration for 
 his suffering fellow-countrymen. Ishmael was of the royal 
 family, and had fled from the country during its troubles, 
 but was received with great kindness on his return by Geda- 
 liah. At a banquet, given for the entertainment of himself 
 and companions, he treacherously murdered his confiding 
 benefactor, as related in the extract quoted. 
 
 Translation. — Dr. Conant translates, ^^ plunged into stupor 
 and sleep." This translation, like that of Baptist writers 
 generally, is not a translation of ^anri^w^ but one made to 
 meet some accident which may pertain, or may be supposed 
 to pertain, to the particular baptism in hand. Thus, a ship 
 baptism is translated 5M6-merge, to meet the idea of going 
 under ; while some other baptism is translated ouer-whelm, 
 to meet a supposed idea of a flood going over the object; and 
 yet another is translated jplunge, to meet the supposed de- 
 mand of the preposition dq^ which is found in the passage; 
 and so on. ITow these translations, evidently, neither are 
 nor can be in response to the demand of /JaTrn'Cw, but are 
 modelled after some accidental features of the baptisms; 
 and as these change, so the translations change, the word 
 
BAPTISM BY DRUNKENNESS. 93 
 
 itself remaining ever the same. For this reason, Dr. Conant, 
 having given us, heretofore, in wine baptisms the transla- 
 tions " whelm and overwhelm," under the imagined pres- 
 ence of a rolling torrent, now introduces "plunge," because 
 of the presence of the preposition, suggesting an act passing 
 into. But this is not to translate ^anriZto. It has been shown 
 in Classic Baptism (p. 294), that "plunge" is unsuitable to 
 represent the Greek word in the case of a sleep baptism. 
 
 Peculiarity of the passage: Verbal Figure. — Baptist writers 
 salute our ears at almost every turn with the cry, Figure! 
 This is a bottomless abyss, into which all difficulties about 
 dipping are cast and buried out of sight. Kot content with 
 such use of the term as would enable them to say, that in 
 such and such cases, the word was troped, turned from its 
 primary sense to meet a special application, they convert 
 " figure " into a limner with brush and pallet and water colors, 
 ever ready to sketch some marine vie\v, enlivened by a tem- 
 pest, or made picturesque by a company engaged in "per- 
 forming the act," without which, neither literality nor figure 
 has any being. If there is a baptism by grief, the exposition 
 is by a dipping into water ; a baptism by study, is resolved 
 by going under water; a baptism by perplexing questions, is 
 met by an onroUing flood of waters; a baptism by famine, 
 is illuminated by a trip to the sea and a sinking into its 
 waters; a baptism by wine, is expounded by an immersion 
 under the water. What magical and infinitely varied virtue 
 has water, that it can, on demand, equally portray grief bap- 
 tism, study baptism, question baptism, sleep baptism, wine 
 baptism, famine baptism, woe of spirit, unnerved intellect, 
 bewildered faculties, profound repose, utter destruction, and 
 so on, even ad infinitum ! Did ever conception bear, more 
 boldly written upon its front, '■'■vagary of the imagination?" 
 
 The patent character of this error is made manifest in 
 another direction. Its advocates are compelled to apply 
 this florid picturing to one-half the cases in which the word 
 is found in the Greek Classics. Was there ever a word in 
 any language which, through centuries of use, presented an 
 equally divided usage of literality and highly-wrought pic- 
 
94 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 turing ? There is no overboldness in saying that there never 
 was, and there never will be, any such word. 
 
 Baptist theorists must pardon us for keeping green in 
 their recollection the similar attempt to divide the domain 
 of ^dTtTO) into equal parts of literality and figure, filling the 
 Greek language with figurative vat-dippings as they now 
 would fill it with figurative water-dippings. But these rhe- 
 torical dippings have, at last, with one consent, been num- 
 bered with commonplace literalities. Where, now, is /SaTrrco 
 used in figure ? It is extremely doubtful whether, in the 
 primary sense of dipping, enough cases can be found in all 
 Classic literature to require one-half the digits for their com- 
 putation. If the same shall not be found true of the Classic 
 use of /SaTTTct"', in its primary sense, there will be a close ap- 
 proximation to it. 
 
 The passage before us not only overthrows the Baptist 
 theory for figurative exposition, by torrents and floods, and 
 dippings and plungings, but establishes the true form and 
 nature of a figurative use of ^aizri^w. In every literal, pri- 
 mary, baptism there is a baptizing power, a baptized object, 
 and a receiving element. But in literal, primary, baptism 
 we have seen that it is a matter of indifi'ereuce whether the 
 object is moved to secure intusposition, or whether the ele- 
 ment is moved to embrace its object. In figurative baptism, 
 therefore, phraseology may be adopted which shall be based 
 on the one or the other of these means to a result. But 
 whichever form be selected, as these baptisms are for in- 
 fluential, and not for physical results, there will be neither 
 movement nor investment in either case, but simply a de- 
 velopment of controlling influence, the character of which 
 must be derived from the elements which enter into any 
 particular baptism. 
 
 The phraseology of the baptism before us is based on the 
 language which is appropriate to the movement of an object, 
 in order to its being enclosed in the receiving element. In- 
 asmuch as this is the first baptism, expressed in verbal figure, 
 that we have encountered, (Classic Baptism presents no such 
 case,) it has a just claim to our very special attention. 
 
BAPTISM BY DRUNKENNESS. 95 
 
 ""EIE — its translation. — Let us first determine what should 
 he the translation of the preposition e^?, which must control 
 the form of the thought. 
 
 This preposition may denote a demand for inness of posi- 
 tion, by passing into, or it may indicate the point toward 
 which movement or thought tends, and at which it rests. 
 Associated with verbs expressive of movement, or which 
 make demand for inness of position, this preposition must 
 be translated by into, unless imperative reasons can be shown 
 for translating it to, unto, or for. 
 
 That it should be translated into in this passage, we con- 
 sider to be conclusively established : 
 
 1. Because of the nature of the verb with which it is as- 
 sociated. That ^a-KriZu) makes demand for iutusposition, in 
 primary use, is in proof. It does not indicate movement to- 
 ward, or rest at, a point. The association of this preposition 
 with such a word, therefore, forbids a merely telic character 
 being attributed to it, and positively requires iutusposition. 
 
 2. Because the association of kindred verbs with this 
 preposition does, admittedly, produce this result. Take, for 
 example, the following: Ek onvov xaraKsaovrwM — " Having fallen 
 into sleep " ( Clem. Rom.) — not unto, nor for, sleep. IlapanecTouffa 
 ei<; fii6Yjv — " The feast passing into, not unto, nor for, drunk- 
 enness." i^Clem. Alex.) Eiz d.vaa&-f]aiav oizofspoijAvq — "Carrying 
 down into, not unto, nor /or, insensibility." {Clem. Alex.) " In 
 novam legem inducti sunt. In Evangelium inducti sunt. 
 Inducted into, not unto, nor for, the new law," &c. [Ambrose.) 
 
 Because another translation than into may make good 
 sense, or declare a true sentiment, gives no sufficient proof 
 that it is accordant with the form of the phraseology, or is 
 reached by the route which the phraseology suggests. These 
 figurative phrases are founded in literal use. KaranovTiaOrjvat 
 elq iakdaaav — " To be swallowed down into the sea, not unto, 
 nor /or, the sea." [Clem. Alex.) "Emergere in lucem — to 
 emerge into, not unto, nor /or, the light." [Tertull.) 
 
 In every case of baptism, the baptized object passes out of 
 one position or condition, and passes into another. Some- 
 times both of these (always implied) are expressly stated — 
 
96 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 h auxppoabvqq el<; Tzopvetav ^aizri^ouai — " They baptize Old of tem- 
 perance into fornication." [Clem. Alex.) So, literally, //.sTafetc 
 t/. ronoo dq totzov — " You may lead our bodies out of one place 
 into another place." [Clem. Alex.) 
 
 These quotations are sufficient to bring into view the fact, 
 that the translation contended for rests on established usasre 
 in kindred phrases, as also in the nature of things. Un- 
 necessary departure from this usage and requirement is with- 
 out apology. 
 
 3. Because the laws of language require, that in the trans- 
 ference of words from literal to ideal relations, verbally cor- 
 respondent, for the purpose of deducing a new sentiment 
 from these new relations, the words must be used, indi- 
 vidually, in their ordinary signification ; the thought being 
 evolved from the incongruous combination. 
 
 In such phrases — as dipping into mathematics; wallowing 
 mvice; petrified zy?7/( horror ; troubles rolling o?;er us; rising 
 to the occasion ; sinking unto despair — there is verbal figure ; 
 that is to say, the phraseology presents the figure or form 
 of a literal transaction. Each word, also, presents itself in 
 its own, and not in a borrowed character. Interpreting on 
 this basis, we soon encounter "a fault;" dipping will not 
 carry us "into" mathematics; incongruous materials have 
 been brought together, and are insusceptible of adjustment 
 without some modification. "Where shall it be made? Let 
 us resolve the phrase into its elements, and examine them 
 separately. "Dip into" group together, and "mathema- 
 tics" stands alone. Can this word be modified? It cannot 
 be changed into geography, or grammar, or pJiilosophy, for this 
 would not modify the statement, but convert it into some- 
 thing wholly diverse. But cannot it be imagined to be water, 
 or oil, or milk, or soft clay? ISTot rationally ; " dipping into" 
 any of these things would throw no light on dipping into 
 mathematics; such imaginations would be labor lost; you 
 must convert them back again into the reality. But would 
 it not help to solve the meaning of such associations of 
 words? N'ot at all; "mathematics" (or whatever else in 
 like phraseological combinations may take its place) is a 
 
BAPTISM BY DRUNKENNESS, 97 
 
 fixed quantity; it allows of no modification; and, because 
 it does not, we are struck with the incongruous materials 
 brought together, and we seek for explanation in the other 
 member of the phrase. 
 
 And, here, in " dip into," we find an every-day acquaint- 
 ance, belonging to the water, or other easil}^ penetrable sub- 
 stance, to which we, thus, have ready access without any 
 metamorphosis of " mathematics." Understanding the func- 
 tion of " dip " to be to place its object, by a slight force, for 
 a slight period of time, slightly beneath the surface, we now 
 reject the idea of the fluid element and the form of action, 
 as not suited to the case, and carry back " dip into " to its 
 novel relation, cheerfully assuming the character — to engage 
 slightly in; and, in this new character, "mathematics" 
 promptly affiliates with this verb, and its satellitic preposi- 
 tion. The form of verbal figure remains, and, through that 
 form, the meaning may be traced by the uninformed of 
 every generation ; but to say that I must go through this 
 process every time I meet with such a phrase, is to talk most 
 irrationally; the meaning being once established, it becomes 
 the meaning of the phrase, and thenceforth gives direct ex- 
 pression to the thought. The members are no longer dis- 
 jecta membra^ but established in organic union with a newly 
 developed life. And it is the freshness of this new life, like 
 the sparkle of newly opened wine, which gives the figure its 
 power, and leads Carson to say, " the first use of the figure 
 is the best." 
 
 All the other phrases are to be expounded in a similar 
 manner. " Vice " is not, by the force of imagination, to be 
 converted into a mudhole; but from the associate member, 
 through its physical relations, we adduce the idea of a bestial 
 practice of vice. " Horror" is not to be changed by the force 
 of imagination into a liquid holding ■some mineral in solution, 
 but from " petrify," in physics, we eliminate the idea of 
 " incapacity to use our f acuities. '^ It is at war with our con- 
 sciousness, and with the laws of mind, to suppose that 
 familiar combinations of this character are, or can be, treated 
 
 7 
 
98 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 as unknown quantities needing to be resolved and reduced 
 to an intelligible proposition every time they are met with. 
 
 When Josephus associates together "baptize (merse) 
 into," and " insensibility and sleep," he brings together in- 
 congruous materials, quite insusceptible of combination 
 under a literal interpretation of individual words. But it is 
 to be presumed that Josephus writes rationally; and that 
 there was a rational combination of these materials in his 
 mind. Seeking to discover what this was, we find the 
 phrase made up of a variable and a fixed element. " Insensi- 
 bility and sleep " are fixed quantities in their own nature, and 
 must remain as they are, or the life of the passage perish. 
 "Baptize (merse) into" is a variable quantity: 1. As to 
 form of action ; 2. As to the nature of the enclosing ele- 
 ment; 3. As to the character of its objects; 4. As to influ- 
 ences consequent. Here is a wide field from which to select, 
 or out of which to construct some modifying element. In 
 seeking for such element we are led to reject, 1. Any definite 
 form of action; 2. To reject the ideaof iutusposition, (1), be- 
 cause it isimpossibletoapply it actually; (2) because it is just 
 as impossible to conceive of it imaginatively; (3) because 
 intusposition in any liquid would be destructive to a human 
 being; therefore the historian did not conceive of Gedaliah 
 as put within either "insensibility or sleep" conceived of 
 as liquids ; (4) because any such conception is as unneces- 
 sary as it is inconsistent with the nature of things. 
 
 But while we reject intusposition as inapplicable in any 
 form to " insensibility and sleep," we accept it as inherent in 
 the phrase " baptize (merse) into," and we look on while it ex- 
 ecutes its functions upon SbJfiJit rock, and we say, that will not 
 answer; here is intusposition without influence, but the rela- 
 tions in the passage exhibit influence without intusposition. 
 We look on upon a second baptism, and witness a ship and 
 crew go down into the sea. Here is both intusposition and 
 influence, yet it is not the kind of influence; this is destruc- 
 tive, that of the passage is not. We become spectators of a 
 third baptism, that of a porous body put into oil and remain- 
 ing there for an indefinite period; when brought out it is 
 
BAPTISM BY DRUNKENNESS. 99 
 
 neither like the "flint," impervious and uninfluenced; nor 
 hke "the ship and crew," destroj^ed; but it is penetrated and 
 pervaded and brought thoroughly under the peculiar oily 
 character of the material within which it has been placed. 
 We have, at last, what the passage demands; rejecting the 
 means by which the result has been secured (intusposition), 
 as having no footing in the case, we have left controlling in- 
 fluence, which meets all the exigencies of the passage, ren- 
 dering its elements congruous and its sentiment appropriate. 
 
 From all which we draw these conclusions : 1. BaTtriZa dq^ 
 when used in relations not admitting of intusposition, but 
 of influence, drops the former idea and expresses directly the 
 idea of controlling influence. 2. Intusposition is limited to the 
 verb and its preposition, and is to be applied (1) To their 
 physical relations, that out of it may be extracted the thought 
 demanded by the passage; and (2) As suggesting, by their 
 verbal form and present relations, the source and character 
 of the developed influence. 3. The conversion of these 
 terms, expressive of influence endlessly varied, into one 
 imaginary fluid, is absurd, because one fluid could not ex- 
 press varied influences; to convert them into diverse fluids 
 is no less absurd, because no flaids could express the dis- 
 tinctive character of the influences. 4. The term expressive 
 of the source and nature of the influence to be expressed, 
 must remain without change. Its duty is exhausted when, 
 at the demand of ^anri^w dq, it communicates its distinctive 
 influence in all the fulness of its power. 
 
 When Gedaliah was " baptized (mersed) into insensibility 
 and sleep," he was, according to the legitimate and only 
 rational interpretation of the verbal figure, brought under the 
 controlling influence of insensibility and sleep. 
 
 4. Why employ verbal figure? Not merely, or mainly, for 
 rhetorical embellishment, but to limit, and define with pre- 
 cision, the thought intended to be conveyed. BanztZot ex- 
 presses, definitely, the condition of intusposition ; but the 
 efiects of intusposition are various, and it cannot express 
 these influences distinctively; it takes, therefore, secondaril}', 
 that which is common to all these influences, namely, con- 
 
100 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 trolling power. When the word is used in this sense, it takes 
 its coloring from its adjunct. Sometimes, as already stated, 
 this is single and invariable, (as in the direct influence of 
 wine,) in which case it becomes the absolute measure and 
 representative of that particular influence. But where di- 
 verse influences proceed from the same source, it is not 
 sufficiently explicit to speak of a baptism from that source 
 while wishing to express some one of its influences. This 
 can onl}' be done by express statement, which will take the 
 form in the passage under consideration — verbal figure — ek 
 being employed, with the proper word, to denote the source 
 and specific character of the influence desired. Thus, while 
 the influence oiwine is specific, that of drunkenness is diver- 
 sified. It may baptize into shame, or poverty, or crime, or 
 many other things. Josephus wished to express a specific 
 result of this baptism ; therefore, he says, not merely, " bap- 
 tized by drunkenness," but "baptized by drunkenness into 
 insensibility and sleep." The passage is important as being 
 rare in its form, (never met with in the classics,) and now 
 first appearing. It is, also, eminently instructive, throwing 
 its light both backward and forward, along the path of this 
 inquiry. We shall meet with it again, under noticeable cir- 
 cumstances, before we get through. It expresses influence in 
 the most specific manner and in the most perfect measure. 
 
 CEREMONIAL PUEIFICATION. 
 BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING HEIFER ASHES. 
 
 Tohg oZv diro vexpov /jsp-taff/iivour:^ Trj<; ricppaq dXiyov si'Z tttj^'^^v iviivrei; xa\ 
 ufffftuTTov, ^aTzriffaMTti; rs xai t^c rifpaq raorrjc; ei<; Try^yr/^, £^/5acvov rpirrj 
 xai il386fjLri rwv rjixspaJv. Jewish Antiq., iv, 4. 
 
 " Those, therefore, defiled by a dead body, introducing a little of 
 the ashes and byssop-branch into a spring, and baptizing of 
 this aphes (introduced) into the spring, they sprinkled both 
 on the third and seventh of the days." 
 
BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. 101 
 
 APPROPRIATION. 
 
 The ritual observance referred to in this extract, is de- 
 scribed in the book of Numbers, chap. xix. " He that toucheth 
 a dead body shall be uncleau seven days. He shall purify 
 himself with it (the heifer ashes) on the third day, and on 
 the seventh day he shall be clean. . . . This is the law. . . . 
 They shall take of the ashes of the burnt heifer of purifica- 
 tion for sin, and running water shall be put thereto in a vessel: 
 And a clean person shall take hyssop, and dip it in the water, 
 and sprinkle it upon him that toucheth one dead. . . . But 
 the man that shall be unclean, and shall not purify himself, 
 that soul shall be cut off from the congregation, because the 
 water of purification has not been sprinkled upon him; he is 
 unclean." 
 
 Reference is made to this rite, as to its nature, purpose, 
 and mode of performance, in Hebrews, 9 : 13. "For if . . . 
 the ashes of a heifer, sprinkling the unclean, sauctifieth to 
 the purifying of the flesh." . . . 
 
 The occasion which induced the historian to refer to the 
 rite, was the purification of the people consequent upon the 
 death of Miriam, sister of Moses. Philo, the Jew, quoted 
 by President Beecher, also refers to this rite in the following 
 language : " 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, then sprinkle 
 it upon those who are to be purified." 
 
 These quotations from Moses, and Paul, and Philo, and 
 Josephus, place this ordinance before us in all its character- 
 istics, in the clearest manner. It is an ordinance which con- 
 templates persons as being in a certain state, or condition, 
 and proposes to take them out of that state, or condition, 
 and to put them into another; or, to speak more definitely, 
 it regards persons as being in a state of ceremonial defile- 
 ment, and proposes to change that state by the application 
 
102 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 of a peculiar purifying influence, and so bring them into a 
 state of ceremonial purity. 
 
 The elements, then, which claim attention are, 1. A state 
 of ceremonial defilement; 2. A state of ceremonial purifica- 
 tion ; 3. Ashes, (mixed with spring-water as a vehicle,) the 
 purifying agency; 4. Sprinkling, the mode of applying. 
 
 By the ordinance, possessed of such features, a baptism 
 was efifected, according to the declaration of Josephus, "bap- 
 tizing them of ashes by sprinkling." The task before us is 
 to harmonize the use of baptize with " ashes," (when no en- 
 velopment and consequent smothering takes place,) and with 
 "sprinkling," with which it is said to be irreconcilable. 
 The discussion, herein involved, demands, first of all, the 
 determination of the fundamental character of the Greek 
 word. 
 
 If this word does express "a definite act, dip, and nothing 
 but dip, and has no other meaning thi'ough all Greek litera- 
 ture," then our task is ended before commenced; for no one, 
 not moonstruck, would attempt to perform the act of di'pping 
 by the help of "ashes," or the modal act of dipping, by the 
 alien modal act of sprinkling. If, however, this word is no 
 more a word modally executive than darkness is light, but 
 demands for its object state, or condition, characterized, pri- 
 marily, by envelopment, subject to development under the 
 laws of language, and modification under the exigencies of 
 usage, like all other words, then, it will hardly be regarded 
 as proof of hopeless lunacy to attempt to show, that a man 
 brought into a thoroughly changed state by the sprinkling of 
 ashes-water, may be called a "baptized" man. 
 
 The true import of this word has been discussed, at large, 
 in Classic Baptism. For the conclusions there reached, so 
 far as they are my own, I ask no deference to be paid by any 
 Baptist scholar; but inasmuch as many of the first scholars 
 of the country have made these conclusions their own, by a 
 cordial approval, I feel bound to affirm their judgment, and 
 to say, that it is a settled point, that /JaTrW^w does not belong to 
 the class of verbs which expresses modal action, but to the 
 class of verbs making demand for state, or condition. 
 
BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. 103 
 
 It has been shown that the characteristic state, or condi- 
 tion, secured for its object by (ia-ziZw, was one calculated to 
 exert over such object the most thorough, penetrating, per- 
 vading, and controlling influence; and that, as a matter of 
 fact, it did (exceptional cases aside) exert such influence. 
 
 It has been shown that these resultant influences varied 
 greatly in their character, according to the nature of the 
 object and of the investing element, while they retained the 
 common feature as to the measure of influence, namely, con- 
 trolling power. 
 
 It has, also, been shown, and it is a vital point, determin- 
 ing the whole usage of the word, that to this state, or con- 
 dition induced, there is no limitation of time; the object 
 may be taken out of such condition, but only by a force 
 counteracting and overcoming the work of /Sa-^t'^w. 
 
 Such are the outstanding features in the physical history 
 of this word. 
 
 To bring this word of great power, of wide range, and of 
 facile adaptation, out of the world of physics, and to intro- 
 duce it into the wider realm of metaphysics — of mind and 
 morals — as applicable to the many and varied cases of con- 
 trolling influence there to be met with, required only an 
 extension of the manner in which the influence should be 
 exerted. That is to say, when the intellectual or moral con- 
 dition of persons or things was to be changed by any in- 
 fluence competent to exert a controlling power, but not 
 adapted to influence through envelopment, or the object not 
 adapted to receive influence through such method of opera- 
 tion, then such change of condition, however eft'ected, should 
 be equally expressed by that same word which, in physics, 
 expressed thorough change of condition, through envelop- 
 ment. Baptist writers do not deny the extension of the. word 
 beyond physics ; but they say the meaning of the word re- 
 mains unchanged. 
 
 The domain of error is a wide one, and furnishes many 
 roads along which its subjects may travel. Our Baptist 
 friends having laid down a principle, rather to burden others 
 than to govern themselves, show neither agreement nor con- 
 
104 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 sistency in maintaining it. Those who insist that the word 
 means modal act should, in obedience to their principle, 
 carry a dipping through all the metaphysical usage of the 
 word. Dr. Carson attempts it; but even his courage fails, 
 and after appealing, most unreasonably, to figure for aid, 
 gives up, times without number, and asks, "Is not the re- 
 semblance between theeffedsf'^ Those who insist on modal 
 act, (but inconsistently allow of half a dozen,) run through 
 the catalogue, dipping, plunging, sinking, whelming, sub- 
 merging, and overwhelming, mind and spirit; yet all will 
 not do; they, too, have to fall back on results, to the abandon- 
 ment of acts. Some, in their extremity, when hard pressed 
 summon "intusposition" to their aid; but if the word is ex- 
 pressive of an act, it is not expressive of intusposition, — a 
 condition; and an appeal to this, is abandonment of "one 
 meaning " alike in physics and in metaphysics. Nor am I 
 alone in making this affirmation. Hear the language of a 
 tried friend: "The baptism" (dipping) "and the state that 
 follows have no necessary connection." [Carson, p. 287.) 
 
 " l^othing can exceed the absurdity of supposing that the 
 word should designate both the immersion," [dipping, in Dr. 
 C.'s vocabulary,) "and the state after immersion." [Carson, 
 p. 283.) Baptists, then, must make their choice (their great 
 controversialist being judge,) between act and state ; but if 
 they choose " act" for physics, and insist on the same mean- 
 ing (only in figure), through all metaphysical usage, they 
 must not slip in "absurdity," state, to help them out of a 
 dilemma. If they choose " state," then they must abandon 
 " act," as also the theory on which they have builded up 
 their system, and reconstruct it after another model. 
 
 From the utter failure of Baptist writers to carry " the 
 same meaning " from physical to metaphysical relations 
 (when the life of their most cherished theory depended on 
 its being done), we may draw the' conclusion, that the de- 
 mand that this should be done is a false and impracticable 
 one. 
 
 We doing avowedly and of free will what they do covertly 
 and compulsorily, occupy the vantage-ground of harmony 
 
BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. 105 
 
 with the laws of language-development, generally, and in 
 the most eminent manner, with that closely related word 
 /JajTTWj which expressing originally dipping, (with coloring as a 
 result,) subsequently expresses coloring without the dipping. 
 
 So, ^aTtziZu)^ originally expressing in physics, intusposition 
 (having influence as a result) ; passing into another realm, 
 where intusposition has no place, expresses change of con- 
 dition from influence without the intusposition. Therefore, 
 in the application of this word to mental and moral relations, 
 we say, that the idea of a condition unlimited as to duration 
 and controlling influence, is retained, while the form of that 
 condition, causative of controlling influence, is dropped : 1. 
 Because there is no possibility for it as a reality; 2, Because 
 the imagination must fail in its efforts to invest with any 
 suitable medium, and would only perpetrate a great folly if 
 it could; 3. Because the conceit which would invest spiritual 
 objects with physical elements, in order to exhibit influence 
 exerted over them, is an absurdity. 
 
 With this general idea of the meaning of the word, and 
 of the method by which that meaning is reached, it becomes 
 our duty to show that the word is used in such meaning in 
 the passage before us. 
 
 Translation. — "Baptizing of (by) this ashes (introduced) 
 into the spring, they sprinkled (the defiled)." 
 
 " Baptizing," denotes here, as everywhere, the bringing 
 into a new state or condition, which may be with or without 
 intusposition. In this case without intusposition. The ob- 
 ject has been in a state of ceremonial impurity; it is brought 
 into a state of ceremonial purity. This translation agrees 
 with our definition, is indicated by more than a score of cases 
 in Classic Baptism, is in full sympathy with the scope of the 
 passage, accords with the grammatical structure, and is de- 
 manded by the exigency of the case. 
 
 "Ashes" constitute the instrumental agency of the bap- 
 tism. Ashes, are capable of constituting a physical envelop- 
 ment, as Herculaneum and Pompeii abundantly testify; but 
 what then ? Does the passage require or allow of such en- 
 velopment ? Just as much as many other envelopments 
 
106 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 which we are called upon to tax our imaginations to picture. 
 Wine baptizes, and wine is capable of enveloping as well as 
 water ; but does wine, where it effects a drunken baptism, 
 envelop its object? Is it not absurd to conceive of it as so 
 doing, inasmuch as it would destroy the baptism contem- 
 plated, and effect another, wholly different, — a drowning 
 baptism ? Wine envelopment (as in the case of the Duke 
 of Clarence), kills ; and ashes envelopment (as in the case 
 of Pompeii), kills. Wine drank, baptizes by bringing into 
 a condition of intoxication. Heifer ashes sprinkled, baptize 
 by bringing into a condition of purification. 
 
 Ashes are as competent to baptize, all Greek writers bear- 
 ing witness, as are the mountain billows of the ocean. The 
 nature of the baptisms differ; but so do baptisms of " armor 
 in marshes," of " a bag of salt " in water, and of a man who 
 swallows " an opiate." If it will give any aid or comfort to 
 friends of " the theory," they are welcome to bring imagina- 
 tion into full play, and to " figure " these falling drops of the 
 watery mixture, into the peltiugs of a storm, or the rushing 
 of a torrent, or the dashing of bursting billows, and so form, 
 according to the established mode, a well-approved " whelm- 
 ing;" only, after this play of ideality, come back to the sober 
 confession, that heifer ashes do baptize. " Whatever influ- 
 ence is capable of thoroughly changiog the character, state, 
 or condition of an object, controlling and conforming it to 
 its own characteristics, is capable of baptizing that object." 
 (Classic Baptism, p. 354.) Heifer ashes are capable of 
 effecting such change in the condition of a ceremonially 
 unclean man, and is, therefore, capable of baptizing such 
 man. 
 
 " Sprinkling " this ashes is as competent to baptize into 
 ceremonial purity, as drinking wine is capable of baptizing 
 into drunkenness, or eating opium into sleep, or the falls of 
 E"iagara into their seething depths. The right arm of Bap- 
 tist argumentation against "sprinkling," is, here, broken. 
 We know nothing of " one definite «c^," or " many definite 
 «cte," or " some general act;" we make demand for condition, 
 and, by that badge, as the servitors of paKzi^m^ every act, mo- 
 
BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. 107 
 
 dal or imraodal, few or many, as well as sweeping torrents, 
 falling billows, rising floods, sprinkling drops, in short, what- 
 ever is capable of thorouglily changing condition. 
 
 The amount of influence which shall belong to this baptiz- 
 ing agency, and the form through which that influence shall 
 find development, belong solely to the will of Him who has 
 established the rite. Under his appointment " sprinkling " 
 is as competent and as every way adapted, to exhaust the 
 divinely ordained influence, and convey it to the defiled ob- 
 ject, and to change its condition by accomplishing the most 
 thorough purification, as any other conceivable mode. 
 
 Ashes, then, are the baptizing agency, the sole agency; 
 the spring-water was not used as an auxiliary in efiecting the 
 baptism, but merely as a vehicle for the transmission of the 
 ashes; Philo, and Josephus, and Paul, speak of nothing 
 but " the ashes." Sprinkling is the mode through which, by 
 divine appointment, the baptizing agency operates. And 
 ceremonial 'purification is the changed condition, state, baptism, 
 accomplished. 
 
 I only add here another remark. The use of ^aizrif^u) to 
 develop and express the power of these sprinkled heifer 
 ashes, places it in a relation so identical in its features with 
 that which it occupies when expounding the power of wine- 
 drinking, that the influence exerted over the word must be 
 the same in both cases. Each of these agencies exerts a spe- 
 cific influence, also, a single, invariable, and controlling in- 
 fluence; now, when, ^anriZoj is employed to express the 
 changed condition efiected by wine-drinking, (which condi- 
 tion was of frequent occurrence and invariably the same,) it 
 could not be without a miracle, but that it must become 
 identified with the specialty of that condition, and secure the 
 meaning, — to make drunk. In like manner, used to expound 
 the changed condition efiected by this purifying rite, — spe- 
 cific in its character, and frequent in its occurrence, — a mira- 
 cle, only, could prevent its absorbing that peculiarity, and 
 expressing directly, — to make ceremonially pure. 
 
 Thus these two meanings, to make drunk and to make pure, 
 so widely diverse in their nature, would, as legitimately as 
 
108 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 certainly, attach, themselves to this word in these varying 
 spheres of usage. 
 
 FRIENDS OF "THE THEORY" NOT SATISFIED. 
 
 Unimpeachable as this exposition may appear, it would be 
 strange if it should be acceptable to the friends of the Bap- 
 tist theory. Its acceptance would as hopelessly baptize their 
 system, as the departure of Josephus would have baptized 
 Jotapata, and with the same kind of ruinous baptism. 
 
 Let us look at their objections. 
 
 1. As to the text. It is said to be corrupted. Bonfrer sug- 
 gests the omission of, re xat ttjc; Ti(ppa.z raurtjq dq nriyrjV. This 
 
 suggestion is accepted by Bekker and the text of his edition 
 made to conform to it. Dr. Conant, also, adopts this read- 
 ing. Hudson, Principal of St. Mary's Hall, Oxford, and a 
 critical editor of Josephus, refers to this criticism, but retains 
 the passage. He farther states, that some copies have Aterct 
 after ^aTzrlaavreq. The grouud of this supposed corruption, 
 as stated, is, "the evident repetition of some words." But 
 where a good reason exists for the repetition of words, there 
 is no just ground furnished for the notion of corruption. Any 
 appearance of such words not being needed may arise from 
 a misconception of the passage. 
 
 The reading alluded to by Hudson is opposed to the idea 
 of any needed omission. A proper translation may relieve 
 the passage of any apparent incumbrance. The introduc- 
 tion of rabrrj':, shows not mere repetition, but gives proof of 
 design. This textual difficulty brings to mind another case 
 of embarrassment, in which relief was sought by complaint 
 of the text. I refer to the passage in Plutarch, Life of Alex- 
 ander, Ixvii, in which the drunken revelry of the army is de- 
 scribed. (Classic Baptism, p. 835.) Du Soul, under the idea 
 that a dipping must be got out of i^aTzuCu), questions the read- 
 ing, — ^aTzriZovreq ix Tzidm ; but it would have been better, in 
 view of the syntax, to have questioned the correctness of the 
 meaning attached to the word. Coray proposes to let the text 
 stand and to interpret by the help of figure. The construc- 
 tion of the two passages is similar, — the verb with the geni- 
 
BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. 109 
 
 tive. It would be not a little remarkable under these cir- 
 cumstances, that the text, both of Plutarch and Josephus, 
 should have been corrupted and after precisely the same 
 style. The baptizing influence proceeds out of the wine in 
 the one case, and out of the ashes in the other case. 
 
 The evidence for corruption, certainly, is not very impres- 
 sive. 
 
 Punctuation. — But fault is found not merely with the words 
 of the passage, but, also, wath the punctuation. Carson (p. 
 288-9) says, "The punctuation of Josephus is. evidently 
 wrong. . . The comma ought to be before A?/5sap." He trans- 
 lates, " Having cast a little of the ashes into the fountain, 
 and having dipped a branch of hyssop and also a little of the 
 same ashes into," &c. Having denied that eviivrs'; could im- 
 merse (dip) the ashes, both because of its own nature, being 
 a " generic term," and because of the nature of ashes, which 
 "cast" into water floats on the surface; and having trans- 
 lated /Sfit-rtffavrec dipping, according to the demand of theory, 
 (notwithstanding that " ashes floats on the surface,") he 
 makes provision to help this latter word to do what the 
 other could not do (dip ashes), by putting them, first, " into 
 a bag, as in cookery." Surely this " dipping" is a thorny 
 road to travel. First, it denies the laws of language-de- 
 velopment; then, it fills Greek literature with imaginary 
 dippings and whelmings, torrents and floods; then, it affirms 
 corruption of text; then, errors of punctuation ; and, last of 
 all, requires the manufacture of a bag to be filled with ashes, 
 in order that it may be dipped, like a pudding in cookery ! 
 Could any testimony be more conclusive that there is no 
 dipping in the case, than the necessity for resorting to such 
 a method in order to secure its introduction ? But not only 
 does this passage, in particular, reject a dipping, but there 
 is no authority, in the general usage of the word, for trans- 
 muting jSanTc^co into ^dnTu). The word and the construction 
 alike protest against such an abuse. It puts, most lawlessly, 
 words and syntax to the rack. The received text and punc- 
 tuation may stand, unaltered, under a proper conception and 
 translation of the passage. 
 
110 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Translation. — While Carson retains the common text, and 
 runs into the extravagances just indicated, Conant adopta 
 the modification proposed, and, bj an ahered punctuation, 
 unites grammatically, uWw-ov ^a--iaavzzq^ dipping the hyssop- 
 branch. Provision has been already made for putting the 
 hyssop into the ashes-water; therefore, this new arrange- 
 ment is uncalled for. There is no authoritj-, but it is against 
 all authority, to make /Sarn'^w perform the office of a dipper 
 either of wine-cups or of hyssop-branches. Besides, it is an 
 axiom with all Baptists, that a baptized object must be wholly 
 covered; but there is no evidence, and it is contrary to reason 
 and the use to which it was to be put, to suppose that this 
 branch was put into, so as to be wholly covered by the mix- 
 ture, whether made in a vessel, as stated by the Scriptures, 
 or in a spring, as supposed to be stated by Josephus. The 
 translation — "Introducing a little of the ashes and the 
 hj'ssop into spring-water, then baptizing (purifying) by this 
 ashes (put) into spring-water, they sprinkled the defiled " — 
 not only does not betray any excess of words, but those re- 
 peated words, standing in an entirely new relation and ex- 
 pressing a wholly difterent truth, do, and are used in order 
 to, give fulness and precision to the explanation of the rite. 
 The facts stated are, 1. The mixture of ashes and spring- 
 water; 2. The dipping of a h3'ssop-branch into this mixture; 
 3. The purification of the people by the ashes, which im- 
 parted their virtue to the water; 4. The mode of applying 
 the ashes to the people by sprinkling. 
 
 The very pith and point of the passage lies precisely in 
 those very words which are to be "improved" out of the 
 text. Josephus states that the purifying (baptizing) was 
 '■'■hy the ashes." The very point on which Philo, as well as 
 a greater than Philo or Josephus, even Paul himself, insists. 
 It is "i^/ie ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, which 
 sanctifieth to the purifying of the flesh." (Heb. 9 : 13.) As 
 to the translation of /Ja-rttw, to 'purify ceremonially, let me 
 again, most pointedly, state, that it is no nameless foundling 
 brought forward for the nonce, to lay claim, under false pre- 
 tences, to a heritage in which it has no right ; but it is the 
 
BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. Ill 
 
 offspring of lawful wedlock, with title to legitimacy running 
 back through all Classic records, until, in deep antiquity, 
 it meets the ancient /JaTrrt'Cw yet in his bachelor days. The 
 genealogical tree is deposited in court and open to the ex- 
 amination of all comers. 
 
 If the view now presented be correct, there is deep sig- 
 nificance in the words of Carson (p. 62) : " The language of 
 no writer can have more authority on this subject than that 
 of Josephus. A Jew, who wrote in the Greek language in 
 the apostolic age, must be the best judge of the meaning of 
 Greek words emploj^ed by Jews in his own time." That 
 sounds like the truth. And we are here introduced, by a 
 competent witness, to the Jewish usage of ^anziZio^ by one 
 who has shown himself to be the perfect master of its Classic 
 usage through all its modifications. This Avitness testifies, 
 that the Jews used ^anriZo) to express the baptism (purifica- 
 tion) b}/ heifer ashes, of defiled persons, by sprinkling it upon 
 them, thus bringing them into a state of ceremonial 'purifica- 
 tion ; and excluding, most absolutely, all idea of a dipping 
 or a covering. As a seal to this interpretation I close with 
 the following quotation from Cyril of Alexandria on Isaiah 
 
 4 : 4, " /Se/JaTTTc'c/jic^a /j.£v yap oux iv udari yupLvoj^ aXX" oude GTiodo) dajj-dXecoq, 
 
 We have been baptized not with bare water, nor yet by the 
 
 ASHES OF A HEIFEP.." 
 
 This settles the attempt to "correct the text," by settling 
 the sufi&ciency of heifer ashes to baptize. Inasmuch as there 
 was not to be any Pompeii baptism (deadly suffocation under 
 ashes sprinkled "long enough to cover"), there was no in- 
 tusposition in this baptism ; and as the only other baptism 
 within the competency of these sprinkled ashes, was a bap- 
 tism of ceremonial purification, we must even be satisfied 
 with this, theories notwithstanding. 
 
112 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 BAPTISM BY HEIFEK ASHES. 
 
 BaTCTiZo/Jsvoq d7:d vexpou y.ai TcdXiv anrojievoq abroo^ ri dxpiXrjaev toi Xoorpas 
 auTou. Sirach, 34 : 30. 
 
 Being baptized from a dead body, and touebing it again, wbat 
 is be benefited by bis cleansing? 
 
 Bajptisjn from the Dead. 
 
 The phraseology of this passage differs, materially, from 
 the preceding. It is, in itself considered, much less definite. 
 The word /SaTzri^aj never declares the performance of any defi- 
 nite act, and not being limited to physical results, it cannot, 
 alone, declare any definite result. The phrase ^aT:Ti^6/i£vo<; anb 
 vsY.poo cannot, without knowledge derived from other sources, 
 convey any definite and complete idea. This is proved from 
 the insuperable difiiculty attending the interpretation of the 
 phrase, l3anri^6;j.£'MH unep zwv vsxpwv (1 Cor. 15 : 28). The phrase 
 not being self-explanatory, and the context not clearly indi- 
 cating the bearing designed by the Apostle, and the possible 
 interpretations being legion, no exposition has been given, 
 or perhaps, can be given, which will command assent. The 
 verbal resemblance to the passage before us is striking, and 
 it is within the range of possibility, that both refer to the 
 same thing; but this is not very probable. Clear knowledge 
 outside of the passage, is now, perhaps, beyond our reach. 
 This embarrassment, however, is eminently instructive. The 
 Greek word, of itself, is dumb with silence to any inquiry as 
 to its relations to physics or metaphysics ; and as in both 
 these relations it is controlled in specialties of form and efl^ect, 
 by things outside of itself, it is absolutely necessary, in the 
 interpretation of any given case, to know, 1. In general, 
 whether the baptism belongs to the real or the ideal. 2. And, 
 in special, what is the baptizing agency or element. "With- 
 out such knowledge no baptism can receive intelligent inter- 
 pretation. But this baptism of the Son of Sirach presents 
 no embarrassment, because, while his own language does 
 not give the needful information, we can get it from other 
 
BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 113 
 
 aonrces. By a comparison with ISTnmbers xix, we karn that 
 the baptism is connected with a particular rite for purifica- 
 tion ; by a reference to Josephus, (J. A., iv, 4,) we learn that 
 the agency in this baptism was heifer ashes, and the mode of 
 its use was sprinkling; by a reference to Josephus, (J. A. x, 9,) 
 we farther learn, by analogy, that the verbal element of such 
 baptism is -/.adaptaiiov; as drunkenness baptizes into a state of 
 insensibility, so heifer ashes baptize into a state of ceremo- 
 nial purity. 
 
 Thus we have all the materials requisite for the most pre- 
 cise determination of this baptism, — "being baptized from 
 the defilement of a dead body," by heifer ashes, into a state 
 of ceremonial purity. 
 
 As to the absolute use of ISaTrn^oj, (agency and element 
 eliminated,) and the value to be attached to it in such use, 
 we receive all needed information by turning to analogous 
 cases. Such is that in Classic Baptism, p. 331, — " I am one 
 of those yesterday baptized." Here, there is not a ray of 
 light thrown on the nature of the baptism, beyond the fact 
 that it was not destructive of life; with this limitation imagi- 
 nation may range ad libitum among pools, torrents, and floods, 
 on the one hand, and states of insensibility, sleep, and puri- 
 fication, on the other. The context, however, clips these 
 pinions by revealing a wine-influence — baptism into a state 
 of drunkenness by wine-drinking — and, thus, we learn that 
 the frequent use of this marked word, in connection with in- 
 toxication, rendered unnecessary the constant repetition of the 
 verbal element, or the agency, but that both were absorbed 
 in and expressed by the, now, enriched and pregnant word 
 ^aTtriZoi, — "I was yesterday baptized=?ria(/e drunk.'' In like 
 manner, under a similar condition of things, arising from the 
 use of this word in this religious rite, it absorbs the verbal 
 element, (purification,) and the baptizing agency, (heifer 
 ashes,) and out of this fulness is enabled, in absolute use, to 
 give a new utterance, — " being baptized=ma(ie ceremonially/ 
 pure from a dead body." 
 
 Thus, in this abbreviated, absolute use, we have the most 
 conclusive evidence for the familiar, long-continued, and well- 
 
 8 
 
114 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 undei'stood use of /5a7rT£'C« in connection with purifying rites, 
 and coming to express directly, without any aid, the end of 
 such rites, namely, to make ceremonially imre. This usage, 
 and this its necessary result, is confirmed by the historical 
 fact, that between the Son of, Sirach and Josephus, was a 
 period of some two hundred years, and between Josephus 
 and Cyril of Alexandria, (who, as we have seen, employs 
 the word in the same manner,) there is an interval of twice 
 two hundred years. Familiar and long-continued usage made 
 the word, without adjunct, plain. 
 
 The absorption of one or more phrases by a single word, 
 which thenceforward becomes the representative and spokes- 
 man of all, is a common development of language. " He 
 drinks,'' was once but a member of the sentence, — " He drinks 
 intoxicating liquors to drunkenness," but, " to drunkenness " was 
 first dropped as sufiiciently expressed in, — "He drinks intoxi- 
 cating liquors;" after a long familiarity with this abbreviation, 
 it became possible to make farther abbreviation, and, "He 
 drinks,'' became perfectly competent to express the whole 
 sentence, and did, absolutely used, express, — He makes him- 
 self drunk. 
 
 When, therefore, we say that ^arLTi'^up.zvoq, iu this passage 
 is a pregnant word, has put on a new character, has attained 
 a secondary meaning, we set up no new statute, but are 
 overshadowed by the protecting and vindicating power of 
 common law. It may be used alone=" being purified," or 
 with the cause of purification — "being purified by heifer 
 ashes," or with the addition of the special cause of defile- 
 ment — "being purified by heifer ashes from a dead body." 
 In this there is no figure. Verbal figure would require a 
 recasting of the phrase, thus: "being baptized (raersed) by 
 heifer ashes, from a dead body into purification;" thus we 
 return to primary signification, and " baptize (merse)" is em- 
 ployed to develop the full influence of "purification;" when 
 "into purification" is dropped, "baptize" becomes impreg- 
 nated with its influence, gives direct expression to it, and all 
 appearance of figure has disappeared. "Words which must 
 appear as tropical to a learner of a distant age, who acquires 
 
BAPTISM EROM THE DEAD. 115 
 
 the language bj the help of grammars and dictionaries, may- 
 have totally lost that appearance to the natives." 
 
 AoUTpoJ. 
 
 There is one feature of this passage which is not exhibited 
 by that in Josephus. It is found in the introduction of 
 XourpaJ, in connection with this baptism. On the ground of 
 the use of this word, and the appointment of a washing 
 (ISTumbers, 19: 19) subsequent to the purification by sprink- 
 ling " the water of separation," Baptist w^riters have claimed 
 that there was a diy^prng in the rite, and that, on the ground 
 of this feature, the word "baptize" is used to describe it by 
 Josephus and others. 
 
 This position requires us to examine, 1. "Whether there 
 was any " dipping" in the law of the rite. 2. "Whether there 
 is any " dipping" in the word which originates this interpre- 
 tation. 
 
 In answer to the first of these points, it may be declared, 
 in the most unqualified manner, that no dipping is required by 
 the law of the rite. There is none in the original text, nor is 
 there any in the Septuagint translation. The English trans- 
 lation, '■'■ bathe in water," is greatly more limited in mode 
 and measure of using the water, than is that of the Septua- 
 gint, Xuofferat udart, {wash with water;) and in so far as it strait- 
 ens, directly, or by implication, the manner of using the 
 water, or gives definiteness to the quantity to be employed, 
 it departs from the original. The evidence for this so utterly 
 excludes all other view, that the friends of "the theory" do 
 not, directly, deny it; but content themselves with saying, 
 that "a washing" maybe effected by a dipping. Suppose 
 this to be true, of what avail is it to explain the presence of 
 "baptize?" If a dipping may be a "washing;" the act of 
 dipping can never be metamorphosed into the state of bap- 
 tism. As there is no " dipping" in the Jewish law, so there 
 is none in the allusions, by Jews, to the fulfilment of the 
 law. Philo says nothing of *' dipping " in speaking of the 
 rite, but refers, exclusively, to the sprinkled ashes. 
 
 Josephus g ves no hint of a "dipping," but ascribes the 
 
116 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 purification exclusively to the ashes sprinkled. C^ril, (not 
 a Jew, but a student of the law,) says nothing of a " dipping." 
 Must it not betoken great extremity when, under such cir- 
 cumstances, this modal act is attempted to be fastened on 
 the rite, and not only so, but to subject all other features so 
 absolutely as to subordinate them to itself, and obliterate the 
 divinely appointed title, " sprinkling the water of separation," 
 and substitute in its stead dipj^ing into water, of a wholly 
 different character? Can "the theory" carry its votaries 
 any farther ? 
 
 But, let us inquire more closely into this " washing." Was 
 it any constituent, at all, in the purification from defilement 
 contracted by " touching a dead body ? " Wesaynot: 1. Be- 
 cause the priest who prepared the ashes was required "to 
 wash his clothes and flesh with water and be unclean till 
 even." He had not touched the dead body. 2. He that 
 burned the heifer was required "to wash his clothes and flesh 
 with water and be unclean till the even." He had uot touched 
 the dead body. 3. He that gathered the ashes was required, 
 "to wash his clothes and be unclean until the even." He 
 had not touched the dead body. 4. He that sprinkled the 
 water of separation was required " to wash his clothes, and 
 he that toucheth the water of separation shall be unclean till 
 even." ISTeither of these had touched the dead body. When, 
 now, he who had touched a dead body, and had received the 
 appointed means of purification, (the sprinkling of the ashes,) 
 was subsequently required, (in common with all others who 
 had been employed in preparing and dispensing, or acciden- 
 tally touching this ashes,) "to wash his clothes and flesh," is 
 it not most irrational to consider this as any element in " the 
 purification from a dead bodyj'^ since it was common to all 
 others, with himself, who had not touched a dead body ? 
 
 The truth is, that while "the water of separation" had the 
 power "to purify from a dead body," yet in another aspect 
 it had itself the power to make unclean ; and therefore, while 
 cleansing from one impurity, its very application made 
 another, and wholly different, cleansing necessary. 
 
 That the sole cleansing power "from a dead body" be- 
 
BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 117 
 
 longed to the heifer ashes, is evident from Hebrews, 9 : 13, 14, 
 "For if the blood of bulls and of goats, and the ashes of a 
 heifer sprinkling the unclean, sanctifieth to the purifying of 
 the flesh; how much more shall the blood of Christ . . . purge 
 your conscience from dead works." The blood of sacrificial 
 victims and the ashes of a blood-red heifer symbolized the 
 blood of Christ; the one cleansed ceremonially and typically, 
 the other cleansed spiritually and efficiently; neither required 
 supplementary aid for the perfect accomplishment of their 
 allotted functions. It is, then, an incidental washing, not 
 pertaining to the purification effected by the sprinkling, which 
 Baptist interpreters would introduce into the rite, giving to 
 it a name which converts the law-appointed baptism by 
 sprinkled ashes into a lawless dipping into water. Dr. Car- 
 son has but little countenance from the law and testimony 
 for his translation, — "He that dip'peth or baptizeih himself, be- 
 cause of a dead body, and toucheth it again, w^hat availeth 
 his dipping or bajjtismf" (p. 66.) He not only falls into the 
 philological heresy which confounds "baptizing" and "dip- 
 ping," but extends it to i^ouco, making it, by a double error, 
 first a dipping, then a baptism. 
 
 If the view now presented be correct, all attempt to ex- 
 clude the baptism as contained in and effected by the ashes, 
 and to transfer it to the appended " washing," falls to the 
 ground ; because it was but a sequence to the purifying bap- 
 tism by sprinkling, and not a part of the rite ; it was some- 
 thing to be done after, and as a consequence of the baptism, 
 and consequently can bear no part in its explanation. 
 
 Aourpov— dipping. But let us more particularly examine 
 this word, which is said so distinctly to proclaim a dipping. 
 
 Dr. Gale says, " The Hebrew word expressing the wash- 
 ing required, ' always includes dipping, and never signifies 
 less.' " Dr. Carson says, " The Greek word translating the 
 Hebrew, requires an immersion of its object — complete cover- 
 ing by the fluid." 
 
 The rash and erroneous statements made, by those who 
 should know better, touching vital points of this controversy, 
 are most remarkable. 
 
118 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 The statement by Gale, respecting the Hebrew woid for 
 washing, is without any adequate foundation. In many cases, 
 the manner of washing is not indicated by circumstances, 
 and the word itself, not expressing mode, we cannot have 
 any certain knowledge in regard to the mode. Others are 
 more explicit, either from the nature of the case, or from 
 circumstances mentioned. 
 
 In Gen. 43 : 31, Joseph is said to have " washed his face," 
 after weeping. If this was done by dipjmig, he was, most 
 probably, the only one in Egypt who followed that mode of 
 face washing. It is, indeed, possible to dip the face and thus 
 wash it ; and it is possible to dip the beard and dye it ; but 
 Dr. Carson thinks this so unreasonable, while not impos- 
 sible, that he makes it a ground for affirming a secondary 
 meaning of f:idr.Tu). Here the improbability is just as great, 
 and yet, to help on " the theory," we are asked to believe 
 that an immodal verb has become modal, and forced the great 
 ruler of Egypt io dip his face to wash off the tear-marks. 
 This abuse in the interpretation of the word, is made more 
 evident in the translation of the Septuagint, where it is rep- 
 resented by vi--(jD ; a word which Dr. Carson says, " does not 
 mean io dip." 
 
 In Deut. 21 : 6, certain persons are directed to " wash their 
 hands over the heifer." When we remember that jiilisha 
 " poured water on the hands of Elijah," and that here, too, 
 the Septuagint translates hj vc-zw, there is but little encour- 
 agement given to a " dipping." In 1 Kings 22 : 38, the 
 armor of Ahab, after battle, being stained with blood, was 
 washed. Is it so necessary and so universal a custom to dip 
 armor, in order to wash blood off from it, that this modal act 
 must be accepted without questioning ? 
 
 When such cases are of every-day occurrence, why is it 
 that Dr. Gale ventures to lay down such a proposition, — this 
 washing always includes dipping ? 
 
 Dr. Carson's claim, that the Greek word requires always, 
 " an immersion " — " a complete covering" of the object — is 
 not more accurate. 
 
 In Acts 9 : 37, the body of Dorcas, after death, was " washed 
 
BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 119 
 
 and laid in an upper chamber." Was this a case of " im- 
 mersion and complete covering ?" In Acts 16 : 33, the jailor 
 took Paul and Silas and " washed their stripes." If this was 
 by " dipping," it may be put alongside of the dipping of 
 Joseph's face ; being modelled after the same manner of good 
 sense, only on a larger scale. Origen, (iv, 241,) speaks of the 
 bullock on the altar needing cleansing — ds6ij.evakourpov, which 
 was done not by dipping, but by pouring, as we are expressly 
 told. 
 
 To make good his position, Dr. C. refers to the use of this 
 word in cases of bathing. This reference assumes, does not 
 prove, that " bathing," in the times alluded to, was by im- 
 mersion and complete covering. This assumption has no 
 better foundation than many others which form corner-stones 
 to " the theory." 
 
 There are some bold and unquestionable facts in this direc- 
 tion, which, both because of present and general bearing, 
 demand distinct presentation. 
 
 Few persons, since the fall of man, have equalled Dr. 
 Carson in self-coniidence. When such men err they err 
 prodigiously and persistently ; for nobody is good enough 
 to teach them. " If the angel Gabriel " were to differ from 
 them, they would, (as this wise and learned Doctor says he 
 would,) " send him to school," where they taught the primer 
 and held the birch. Some of these errors of Dr. C. have 
 been already pointed out, others remain to be indicated. 
 
 In discussion with President Beecher, this writer had af- 
 firmed that ">^ouw, like our word bathe, applied to animal 
 bodies only." This position, having been refuted by an 
 amount of evidence which could not be gainsayed, was with- 
 drawn, and this new position taken, — " But none of the ex- 
 amples prove that the thing so washed was not covered with 
 the water; this is all we want." 
 
 Everything cannot be disproved at once. And when Bap- 
 tist writers flee from their present falling house, to some 
 other refuge, and cry, " But you have not shaken down this," 
 we can only answer, Get fixed in your new quarters and wait 
 your turn. 
 
120 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 This Greek verb Carson has translated, in the same pas- 
 sage, dlj)^ and bathe, and wash, and immerse, and now exults 
 in there being, at all events, " a covering with water, which 
 is all we want." This position must take its turn, and bide 
 the decision of a court of last resort. 
 
 The challenge thrown out is this: "All cases of bathing 
 described by this word (AoDw) among Greeks and Scythians, 
 Egyptians and Indians, were cases of bathing by immer- 
 sion." 
 
 In testing the defensive merits of this new position, we 
 present, first, the following extract from Professor Wilson, 
 occupying the Chair of Biblical Literature, Belfast, Ireland, 
 contained in his work on Baptism (pp. 156-168): "In the 
 age of Homer, the vessel for bathing went by the name of 
 aaaixivOoq, and among Greeks, of a somewhat later age, it was 
 called TiOs^oq. Dr. W. Smith, in his Dictionary of Greek and 
 Roman Antiquities, in the article on Baths, presents us with 
 the following clear and important statement respecting the 
 mode of using the aaaim^oq ; 'It would appear, from the de- 
 scription of the bath administered to Ulysses in the palace of 
 Circe, that this vessel did not contain water itself, but was only 
 used for the bather to sit in while the Avarni loater was poured 
 over him, which was heated in a large caldron or tripod, 
 under which the fire was placed, and when sufficiently 
 warmed was taken out in other vessels, and poured over 
 the head and shoulders of the person who sat in the aVa/ztV^oc.' 
 From this pregnant instance the advocate for dipping may 
 learn an instructive lesson. It is no proof of immersion, 
 that a party is represented as going into the bath, and coming 
 out of the bath. 
 
 " In the case of Ulysses, the descent and the ascent are 
 both distinctly recorded; while the author expressly informs 
 us, that the ablution was performed by p)Ouring or affusion, and 
 not by immersion. This testimony must tell on every dis- 
 cerning mind. Dr. Smith farther says : ' On ancient vases, 
 on which persons are represented bathing, we never find any- 
 thing corresponding to a modern bath, in which persons can stand 
 or sit; but there is always a round or oval basin, resting on 
 
BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 121 
 
 a stand, by the side of which those who are bathing are rep- 
 resented standing undressed, and washing themselves.' 
 
 "This was one of the ordinary pubhc baths of Greece. 
 Where is the ' immersion ?' These basins were called Xounjpsq, 
 as also similar basins at the porticos of Christian churches, 
 in the earlier centuries, for washing the hands. 
 
 " It is not, then, a matter of fact, though Dr. Carson has 
 stated it in strong and unequivocal terms, ' that immersion 
 is almost always the way of bathing.' It may be so in our 
 own age and country, and if this furnished the standard of 
 comparison, no doubt his cause would be triumphant. But, 
 in regard to the baths of the ancient Greeks, his statement 
 utterly fails, and, failing in that quarter, it is nothing to his 
 purpose. 
 
 " The common practice of Greece is incidentally, but very 
 strikingly, referred to by Plutarch, in his Ethical Treatise 
 against Colotes. After stating that you may see some per- 
 sons using the warm-bath, others the cold, he adds: 'Ot /xiv 
 yap (pu^pdv 6i dk 6ep/j.ov iTTc^dXkecv xeXsuouai ; ' For some give Orders 
 to apply it cold, others hot.' The force oi iTzifidkhiv strongly 
 corroborates the views which we advocate, and indeed con- 
 stitutes an independent attestation. The value of this testi- 
 mony is greatly enhanced by its exact correspondence with 
 the representations on the Greek vases. The ordinary sys- 
 tem of bathing in ancient Greece knew no immersion, and em- 
 braced no covering of the body with water. 
 
 "Among th'e paintings in an ancient tomb at Thebes is one 
 containing a representation of a lady enjoying the luxury of 
 a bath, and attended by four domestic servants. This pre- 
 cious relic of former art is thus described by Sir J. Gardner 
 Wilkinson, in his elaborate work on The Manners and Cus- 
 toms of the Ancient Egyptians, iii, 338 : ' One attendant re- 
 moves the jewelry and clothes she has taken off", or suspends 
 them to a stand in the apartment; another /^oztrs water from 
 a vase over her head, as the third rubs her arms and body with 
 her open hands; and a fourth, seated near her, holds a sweet- 
 scented flower to her nose, and supports her as she sits (on 
 a carpet or mat).' 
 
122 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 " ' The same subject,' Wilkinson adds, ' is treated nearly 
 in the same manner, on some of the Greek vases, the water 
 being poured over the bather, who kneels or is seated on the 
 ground.' The mode of bathing in Egypt is thus identified 
 with that of ancient Greece. This course of research will 
 convince those who prosecute it, that their understandings 
 are trifled with, and that speech is abused, when pouring 
 water on the bather, the mode practised in the public baths of 
 Greece, is referred to merely as a possible way of bathing." 
 
 How evidently and how fatally these facts penetrate the 
 centre of the " new position " needs no supplementary words 
 to indicate. The evidence, however, might be much ex- 
 tended, did it not seem like inviting the remark, — "And 
 thrice he slew the slain." Still, one more fact, developing, 
 in the most unmistakable and instructive manner, the mode 
 of bathing by a people widely separated, geographically, 
 from those hitherto spoken of, may be adduced. Facts, like 
 diamond points, will make their mark when all else fails. 
 Dr. Carson refers to the bathing of the East Indians as sup- 
 porting an "immersion" bath. The following statement of 
 fact by the Rev. Mr. Lowenthal, missionary in India, is con- 
 clusive, in more than one direction, against unqualified as- 
 sertions based on absolute assumptions. This missionary 
 (eminent for talent, learning, and devotion, murdered at his 
 post) says, — "The Hindoos use a small urn, called lota, with 
 which they bathe at the river, pouring water over the body." 
 How often have we been told, that when a man " goes to a 
 river," to bathe or to baptize, idiocy only could deny that 
 he must go for an " immersion." And yet here is the prac- 
 tice of a people (appealed to for the purpose of sustaining an 
 immersion bath) who do not only bathe by " pouring water 
 over the body," like Greeks and Egyptians, but who '^ go to 
 the river" for this purpose, taking up the water by means of 
 a " small urn." Assertions and assumptions should have a 
 very small place in controversial writings. Having no knowl- 
 edge of the Sanscrit, I rely upon others, when I say, Allava, 
 in that language, means to bathe, to wash. Lota, the vessel 
 used in bathing, would seem to stand in the same relation 
 
BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 123 
 
 to allava as ^ourijp to ^ouw, and" laver to lave (lavo); and that 
 lota, kouryjp^ and laver were vessels not for bathing in, but for 
 holding the water with which, when poured out or drawn 
 out, the bathing or washing might be effected. 
 
 The Septuagint uses the term Xour-qp for the brazen laver 
 placed in the tabernacle for ritual purification. There was 
 no immersion in this laver. It contained water with which, 
 when drawn out, the hands and feet of the priests were 
 washed ; thus fulfilling the same ofiice as the Xouz^p of the 
 Grecian baths, from which water was taken to be poured 
 over the bathers, as also that of the. "lota" of the Hindoos. 
 The Scripture direction is, — " Aaron and his sons shall wash 
 their hands and their feet, with water, out of it" — Ka\ vicpsrai. 
 
 'Aapcbv xai ol uloc. abroo i^ abrov ra^ ^sTpaq, xal roibq izodaq udart. 
 
 (Exod. 30 : 19.) 
 
 I add but one more fact on this subject of Indian bath- 
 ing. The Rev. Charles Stewart, chaplain U. S. l!T., (who was 
 on board the man-of-war appointed to convey back to their 
 country the Japanese ambassadors to the United States gov- 
 ernment,) states, that the mode of bathing by these ambas- 
 sadors, on board the ship, was by having water taken out of 
 a small vessel, and spirted over them by an attendant, while 
 they were seated on the floor. 
 
 The fixedness of Eastern customs carries these modes of 
 bathing, on the river-bank and in mid-ocean, by "pouring" 
 and by " spirting," far back to the ages of Grecian vases, 
 and Egyptian paintings, and Mosaic institutions. 
 
 If ever a crushing blow was delivered, such facts go right 
 through the assertion, that ^oucj, lourpov^ washing, bathing, re- 
 quire the " immersion or the complete covering " of the 
 object. 
 
 Cleansing. — But we may go farther and say, ^oom is used 
 when water is not employed at all, or not employed to 
 effect any physical washing; the effect contemplated being 
 one cleansing in its nature. 
 
 It is thus used both in the Septuagint aod ]^ew Testament. 
 When Isaiah says, "Wash {kouw) you, make you clean, put 
 away the evil of your doings, cease to do evil, learn to do 
 
124 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 well," he issues no command for the use of water, much less 
 for its modal use by " immersion, complete covering." He 
 contemplates a result (cleansing), and the mode for its ac- 
 complishment he expressly states, " cease to do evil, learn 
 to do well." If, after being thus cleansed, they should re- 
 turn to their evil-doing, the prophet might well ask, in the 
 language of the Son of Sirach, " Of what profit was your 
 cleansing or ' washing?' " 
 
 In the I^ew Testament, the redeemed are said to be 
 "washed" [Xovw) by the blood of the crucified Saviour. 
 The only definite mode in which Christ's blood is repre- 
 sented as applied to his people is that of sprmJding, the same 
 as that in which the tj^pical ashes were applied. IsTow, the 
 least particle of these ashes had all the cleansing power be- 
 longing to the entire mass. The same is true of the blood 
 of the slain Lamb. This great truth (antagonistic to the 
 notion of a greater good in quantity) is implied in the mode 
 of use employed — by " sprinkling." 
 
 Inasmuch as these sprinklings were competent to produce 
 the most absolute cleansing, (ceremonial and typical in the 
 one case, spiritual and real in the other,) there is the most 
 entire propriety in representing such sprinklings as wash- 
 mge=thorough cleansings. And if the sprinkling of the blood 
 of Christ is spoken of as a ''Avashing," why not the typical 
 sprinkling of the ashes, also, be spoken of as a washing 
 (;.ouT/?ai) ? Is it not entirely gratuitous to disconnect this term 
 from the purifying effect of the ashes, in order to bring in a 
 sequent washing, having nothing to do with the distinctive 
 purification of the rite? If loorpat may he applied to the ashes 
 purification, we say it must 7iot be applied to anything else. 
 
 It is in proof that ^aitzi'^u} refers to the state of purification 
 induced not by water, but by ashes; and this being so, there 
 is a logical necessity that ^ourpuj should refer to the same state 
 of purification. 
 
 Dr. Carson endeavors to show, that "sprinkling" and 
 " washing," as applied to the blood of Christ, denote two 
 modes of its use; the one for sprinkling, and the other for 
 immersion. But there is no ground whatever, in Scripture, 
 
BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 125 
 
 for the idea that one soul is " immersed" in the blood of the 
 Lamb, much less the universal church of all ages. There 
 are few, outside of the theorists, who will not be intellectu- 
 ally and morally shocked in attempting to give embodiment 
 to such a conception. If it were necessary, under such cir- 
 cumstances, to go to the literal application of the word, Dr. 
 C. and his friends ought to know, right well, that the wash- 
 ing with water of a very limited part of the body was suffi- 
 cient to purify the whole; and that touching with blood the 
 tip of the ear, the thumb, and the toe, had efficacious cleans- 
 ing power extending to the whole body, without " immer- 
 sion" in blood. But it is not necessary to go back to the 
 primary use of the word. 
 
 In such cases, the idea of cleansing is directly conveyed, 
 without regard to the extent or the manner of application. 
 The efficacy of the blood of Christ depends on neither quan- 
 tity nor mode. And when the terms sprinkle and wash are 
 applied to it, distinction of mode is not to be pressed, but that 
 in which they agree, namely, — power to cleanse. " "Washed 
 by his blood," — " blood of sprinkling," call our attention not 
 to modes of operation, but to efficacious influence. 
 
 That Xoorpiu maj^ be used, in the passage under considera- 
 tion, as expressive of the result reached by sprinkling^ is made 
 certain by its use, with the purification of Ariantheus, by 
 sprinkling, on his dying-bed, who, thus, was baptized "with 
 the bath, washing, cleansing — Xourpu) — of regeneration." [Basil, 
 iv, 1001.) This death-bed sprinkling, Basil being witness, 
 effected a " washing." The sprinkling of the blood of Christ 
 effects a washing. The sprinkling of heifer ashes effected 
 a washing in precisely the same general sense, — a cleansing 
 from impurity. 'Now, shall we adopt this well-established in- 
 terpretation, meeting all the features of the case, or shall we 
 leave out the sprinkling and the ashes, (the alpha and the 
 omega of the rite,) and introduce " immersion" and "bath- 
 ing," (not a syllable for which can be found in the law,) on 
 the ground that "superstition" may have introduced them 
 (Carson)? Ambrose (ii, 1583) speaks of a washing, cleans- 
 ing, ablution without water, indeed of water itself, — ^^ablutce 
 
126 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 per carnem Chrisii." If the " flesh " of Christ can wash, ashes, 
 representing the blood of Christ, can " wash." And this 
 "washing" is .a cleansing from which w^ater has disappeared, 
 not only as to " covering," but in every other form. 
 
 Syntax. — The syntax of this passage is unusual and claims 
 attention. Any essential change of syntax in the structure 
 of a sentence is admitted to be evidence of some change of 
 thought and of the meaning of words. 
 
 President Halley, of England, adduces the phrase 6i rr,v 
 Tzopifupav jSanrovTsq — '• those dyeing the purple" — as conclusive 
 evidence of a change of meaning in /Sa-rw. " The syntax is 
 so varied as to make not the thing colored, but the color 
 itself, the object of the verb; the secondary sense has re- 
 nounced all dependence on the primary, and established 
 itself by a new law of syntax, enacted by usage to secure its 
 undisturbed possession." 
 
 Professor Wilson, of Belfast, after examining and reject- 
 ing the explanations of Gale and Carson on Daniel 4 : 30, 
 ind TYjq dpoaou — ipdcfrj^ " wet from the dew," based on the 
 primary meaning — dip, says: "The construction with d.~b is 
 inexplicable on the principle of a literal, primary interpre- 
 tation. But if the verb, divorced from mode, takes the 
 meaning to wet, then a literal exegesis is both practicable 
 and natural." 
 
 Professor Stuart, of our country, quotes a similarly con- 
 structed passage from Leviticus 4 : 17, y-a\ ftd</>£t 6 kpsug rdv 
 ddy.TuHuv d-d zou alimToc, — " Aud the priest shall moisten or smear 
 over his finger from the blood," as indicating, by its change 
 of syntax, a change in the meaning of the verb. 
 
 Precisely the same syntactical form, as in the last two pas- 
 sages, occurs in the passage under consideration — /Sa/rrj^o/^evo? 
 d-Tzb vey.pob, " being baptized from the dead;" there can be no 
 translation of this passage, as it stands, on the basis of a dip- 
 ping, an immersing, or a covering over ; but if we adopt that 
 meaning which has been shown to be the legitimate produc- 
 tion of the laws of language — to make pure — the translation 
 is direct and facile, '■'■ being purified from a dead bod}^" And 
 just as " dye" and " wet" are the natural advance meanings 
 
BAPTISM FROM THE DEAD. 127 
 
 of dip, so " to purify " is the natural advance meaning of 
 ^aTzriZm in religious rites. 
 
 Thus the result of language-development is sustained oy 
 modified form in the relation of words to meet modified 
 meaning of words. 
 
 When we come to usage like this, we feel the necessity, 
 in writings intended for general circulation, to introduce a 
 second word in translation. 
 
 The Greeks employed ^dnrco to denote a dipinng, and also 
 the far-oft' idea of a bloodied face. They reached this second 
 meaning legitimately, but our language has not travelled in 
 that direction, certainly not to that point, and probably never 
 will; if, therefore, we wish to translate from the Greek any- 
 thing respecting " a bloodied face," (or " bloodied finger,") 
 we will use some other word than dip. 
 
 The Greeks also used ^aTtriZu) to express to merse, and also 
 the far-removed idea to make drunk, reached, however, by 
 methods most legitimate ; but we have no such usage, and 
 therefore, to be intelligible, must use a second word. The 
 Jews used /Ja^mtw, like the Greeks, in the sense to merse, and 
 (by a development which the Greeks had not followed out, 
 but on the same principles which they had followed to other 
 issues) they used it to express the idea to make ceremonially 
 pure. We have nothing to do with Jewish or any other 
 ceremonial purity, and have no such nieaniog attached or 
 readily attachable to the word, and, consequently, are under 
 obligation to use another word, or introduce some caveat 
 against misconception. The Jew would have been no less 
 embarrassed, in speaking of the Duke of Wellington and of 
 ISTelson's flag-ship, by the same designation — a'^rjp TzoleiuaTrjq. 
 Having such phrase rigidly fixed to express the warlike char- 
 acter of a David or a Goliah, and having no counterpart to 
 the "Victory" and her thundering cannon, (any more than 
 we have to Jewish defilements and ritual purifications,) they 
 would not be likely to engraft upon their language by a lite- 
 ral translation, "man-of-war" for a fighting-ship, but would 
 give it expression by some word or phrase in harmony with 
 their own use of language. 
 
128 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 In Classic Baptism, having represented the one Greek 
 word ^anriZut by the one word vierse^ (indicating, in other 
 ways than by the translation, the difi'erences of meaning, 
 and pointing out their legitimate outgrowth from the radi- 
 cal idea,) I will no longer do violence to our very different 
 language position by retaining always the same verbal form. 
 
 Feeling justified in believing that proof has been adduced 
 that the Classic Baptism, 'par eminence, was a state of intoxi- 
 cation, and that, by like eminence, a state of ceremonial imriji- 
 caiion was Judaic Baptism, I shall feel at perfect liberty to 
 translate and to speak accordingly. 
 
 Much attention has been given to this passage because of 
 its importance, both direct and indirect. When it shall have 
 been closely compared with the ritual law; with Josephus, 
 Philo, and Cyril ; with the usage of ^-oocu in the Septuagint and 
 New Testament; with the classical development of ^aTzzi^u)-, 
 and when the absolute use of ^ar.ri^oixv^oi;^ and its peculiar 
 syntax shall have been duly considered; I think that there 
 will be few who will not admit it as proving, that the sprink- 
 ling of heifer ashes reveals the agency and the mode by which 
 this baptism was efiected, and that the resultant condition — 
 ceremonial purification, was Judaic Baptism. 
 
 Abundant evidence confirmatory of this conclusion will 
 be, hereafter, met with. 
 
OLD TESTAMENT BAPTISMS. 
 
 (129) 
 
PATEISTIC INTEEPEETATION 
 
 OF 
 
 PASSAGES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, 
 
 EXPOUNDED AS 
 
 JUDAIC BAPTISMS AND FIGURES OF CHRISTIAl^r 
 
 BAPTISM, 
 
 SHOWiura their conceptioit op 
 
 B A n T I z n. 
 
 The passages taken from the Old Testament Scriptures, 
 now about to be examined, do not, of course, exhibit the 
 Greek word in the original (Hebrew) text; nor is this word 
 often found in the Greek (Septuagint) translation. This, 
 however, far from being a disadvantage, is a manifest ad- 
 vantage. The use of a word belonging to one language as 
 the equivalent of a word in another language, or as exposi- 
 tory of an idea resultant from many words, or as declarative 
 of an effect accomplished by an act or combination of acts 
 and influences, all sharply defined and well understood, 
 leaves but little material to be desired for a proper under- 
 standing of such word. 
 
 The propriety and the value of such usage find their vindi- 
 cation in the employment by the inspired Apostle of ^anriZut 
 to describe the relation established between the Israelites and 
 Moses by the miraculous passage of the Red Sea. In the 
 Hebrew text there is no verbal form which is represented by 
 the Greek — elqrbv Mwffrjv if^aTzriaavzo ; it is no translation, but 
 an independent, authoritative statement or interpretation, 
 which may or may not be found in the narrative by Moses. 
 
 (131) 
 
132 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 But whether in the verbal record as originally made through 
 the Holy Ghost, or not, it was in the transaction. The his- 
 torical narrative of occurring events may be varied, but the 
 events themselves cannot be changed. Paul's statement, if 
 not found among the words of Moses, will be found among 
 the facts of the transaction or their outwrought results. 
 The record by Moses and by Paul has equally the stamp of 
 divine authority. Justly expounded, the different forms of 
 phraseology will give welcome and valuable aid in reaching 
 the meaning of words, and a fuller understanding of the 
 transaction. When Patristic writers, not professing to trans- 
 late the Hebrew text, but to expound the nature of minutely 
 described rites, or the results of historically detailed transac- 
 tions, pronouDce them baptisms, their statement has no divine 
 authority, as has Paul's, but it has the highest human au- 
 thority. 
 
 These writers had, unquestionably, a perfect knowledge 
 of the Greek word, as classically used, as also of its capabili- 
 ties for development, and the laws of the Greek language, 
 under which such development should be made. Their au- 
 thority for the use of a Greek word is as unimpeachable as 
 is that of Homer or of Xenophon, so far as meaning and 
 fitness of application are concerned. 
 
 The exposition of the Old Testament, in reference to bap- 
 tism by Patrists, must be made from their own standpoint, 
 as to the nature of Christian and Judaic Baptism ; and, in 
 interpreting their interpretation, we must occupy the same 
 position. They may err in their understanding of the nature 
 of these baptisms, but they cannot err in their understanding 
 of the nature, abstractly, of a baptism. 
 
 When they say that the nature or value, intrinsic or rela- 
 tive, of Judaic Baptism, of John's Baptism, of Christian 
 Baptism, was this or that, they may be right or wrong, and 
 are subject to peremptory challenge; but when they say that 
 a certain rite, by means of a drop of water falling from the 
 finger's tip, effects a baptism; or, that the act by which the 
 hand of the priest is laid upon the head, effects a baptism; 
 or, that influe'ice, proceeding from any source, without con- 
 
FIGURES OP CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 133 
 
 tact, effects a baptism, they are beyond impeacbment from 
 us. They are arbiters, without appeal, as to the capability 
 of the word for such usage. Such use, is, in itself, a final 
 decree in the case. 
 
 Again, when these writers declare of certain transactions, 
 that they are "figures" of baptism, we are at liberty to ques- 
 tion whether there was any such " figure " designed by the 
 inspired writer; or we may question the soundness of judg- 
 ment which finds such figure ; or we may challenge on the 
 ground of the abstract merits of the case; but it is beyond 
 our province to raise a question as to the existence of resem- 
 blance to baptism, as it has become concrete in the minds of 
 these writers. Whenever they put their finger upon a fact, 
 or indicate a conception, and say " that resembles baptism," 
 we have nothing to do but to accept such fact or conception 
 as an image in the glass shadowing forth the reality in their 
 minds. The great value of these "figures" and "images" 
 is that they are fixed quantities, not like the ever-varying 
 "figures" — trope, and metaphor, and hyperbole, and cata- 
 chresis, and metonomy, and synecdoche — which wait, as an 
 ever-ready band of servitors, upon the theory; nor like the 
 pictures of "pools, and floods, and torrents," into which debt- 
 ors and tax-payers are dipped, or by which ships and cities 
 are whelmed. Such things may give exercise to the imagi- 
 nation, but will furnish very little satisfaction to thoughtful 
 men, as introduced into this subject by Baptist writers. 
 
 If, in the examination of the many and varied appeals to 
 "figure," by Patristic writers, we do not find one instance 
 of " a dipping," one instance of "a torrent," one instance of 
 " a covering over," as exhibiting a resemblance to baptism, 
 but, on the contrary, find constant reference to resemblances 
 in things which are as far removed from dippings, whelmings, 
 coverings, as is the east removed from the west, what must 
 we conclude to be the Patristic estimation of the theory 
 which makes baptism " a dipping, and nothing but a dip- 
 ping, through all Grreek literature ?" 
 
 If there were no other ruinous evidence against the dip- 
 ping theory than that furnished by these Old Testament 
 
134 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 baptisms and figures of baptism, brought to view by Patris- 
 tic writers, this alone would be sufficient to insure its death 
 and burial, without hope of resurrection. 
 Let us now look at some of them. 
 
 BAPTISM OF THE WATEES BY QUALITY IMPARTED. 
 
 Genesis 1 : 2. 
 " And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." 
 
 Baytism of the Waters by the Spirit of God. 
 
 " Sed ea satis prsecerpsisse, in quibus et ratio Baptismi recog- 
 noscitur prima ilia, qua jam tunc etiam ijDso habitu prsenotabatur 
 ad Baptismi figuram, Dei Spiritum, qui ab initio superveetabatur 
 super aquas, intinctos reformaturum. Sanctum autem utique 
 super sanctum ferebatur; aut ab eo quod superferebatur, id quod 
 ferebat, sancitatem mutuabatur. Quoniam subjecta quseque ma- 
 teria, ejus quse desuper imminet, qualitatem rapiat necesse est, 
 maxime corporalis spiritalem, et jDcnetrare et insidere facilem 
 per substantise suse subtilitatem. Ita de sancto sanctificatae na- 
 tura aquarum, et ipsse sanctificare concepit." 
 
 "But it is siifficient to have premised these things, Tvhereby 
 also may be recognized that prime nature of baptism, by which, 
 even then, by its very dress, was foreshown by a figure of bap- 
 tism, that the Spirit of God, which from the beginning was 
 upborne above the waters, would transform the imbued. But, 
 indeed, the holy was borne above the holy, or that which bore 
 received sanctity from that upborne. Since whatever substance 
 is beneath, receives, of necessity, character from that which rests 
 above, especially is a physical substance pervaded hy a spiritual, 
 through the subtlety of its nature. So the nature of the waters 
 was sanctified by the Holy, and itself received the power to 
 sanctify." — Tertullian, i, 1203. 
 
 Didymus Alexandrinus (692), speaks of this passage in terms 
 so closely resembling those of Tertullian, that they almost ap- 
 pear to be a translation. 
 
 ^H ddiaipsTO^ y.al app-qroe; Tpta^^ upoopwaa k^ aUhvoc; rod dyOpcuncvoo ftioo 
 ra oXiffdrjpd, uparu) Tzapayayeiv ix prj ovrcuv zr^v vypav obaiav^ Tjvrpintasv 
 
BAPTISM OF THE WATERS BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD. 135 
 
 dvffpconoig TTjv iv ToTg udacrtv cafftv. Totydprot ttj iauroo h-icpopa rb Syiov 
 Uveufxa kx tots dyidffav aorct, xdl ^ojoyovov drzoTeXiffav (paivzTat. UavrX 
 ■fd.p TzpodrjXov biidp^ei^ dx; xai Td vnepxsi/isvov fai VTzepxetp-ivo) rij? olxeiaq 
 fi£Tadtd(offcv, IV' ouTwq eiTto), tzocottjto^, xai Tzaaa v-Koxetixivq uXrj, TT^q too 
 inusifiivoo <piX£l TTux; dpTzd^etv idtorrjroi;. "Odev ddtaxpcTtoq izavTl udaTt, 
 . . . fidnTifffjia yiveTM. (" Baptism is effected by every water indis- 
 criminately.") 
 
 EXPOSITION. 
 
 This is not a case of Judaic Baptism; but a "figure" of 
 Patristic Baptism as conceived of, taught, and practised, by 
 Tertullian and others. 
 
 It is not a little remarkable that in the first chapter of the 
 Old Testament, and, almost, in its first verse, there should 
 be found a "figure of baptism," susceptible, under any ap- 
 pliances of imagination, of developing nearly all the salient 
 points of baptism as it lay in the Patrist mind. Whether 
 their views were right or wrong is not, now, any inquiry of 
 ours. We have to do with philology, not with theology. A 
 heathen Greek or a Patristic errorist can, here, give sound 
 instruction as to the usage of words. 
 
 It would not be proper to consider in detail, the peculiar- 
 ities of Patristic baptism; but they form so completely the 
 web and woof of their interpretations of these Old Testa- 
 ment baptisms, that it becomes essential to give them some 
 attention. The present is a favorable opportunity to do so, 
 as they cluster around the exposition of this passage in an 
 unusual degree. 
 
 " Figure of Baptism." — In this figure of baptism presented 
 before us by Tertullian there are but two elements, — the 
 Holy Spirit and water. Our business is to discover the justi- 
 fying ground for affirming that these elements, in them- 
 selves, or in their relations to each other, or by their in- 
 fluence over each other, exhibit "the figure," form, or char- 
 acter of a baptism. A " figure " must contain a resemblance 
 to the reality figured. Baptists have maintained, with the 
 most cast iron rigidity, that baptism consists of "mode, and 
 nothing but mode," and that a discussion of the mode of 
 baptism is as great a blunder as to discuss the mode of dip- 
 
136 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 ping, whose form is a fixed unity. Try this theory by " the 
 figure of baptism" before us. Is there anything in it which 
 resembles a dipping? I need hardly say that there is no 
 such thing. 
 
 We have, then, a figure of baptism, with the baptism part 
 left out. 
 
 But the more sober-minded Baptists are beginning to 
 shrink from this position, to which they so long demanded 
 the obedience of the Christian world under penalty of dis- 
 loyalty to God, and are substituting liberty in the act, yet 
 requiring completeness in the covering. Is there any com- 
 pleteness of covering in this "figure?" There is none 
 whatever. Again, then, we have a house built with the 
 foundation forgotten. The Baptist theory, whether repre- 
 sented in its rigidity by Carson, or in its laxity by Conant, 
 utterly fails to expound this "figure of baptism." 
 
 Submit, now, to the same test the conclusion to which we 
 have been brought by an examination of the usage of classic 
 writers, — a conclusion which denies that the essence of /JaTrntw 
 is to be found in action, definite or indefinite ; and affirms that 
 it is to be found in change of condition: 1. To place an object 
 in a condition of physical intusposition subject to all the 
 controlling influences of such condition. 2. To change con- 
 trollingly and after its own nature the condition of an object, 
 without intusposition, by any influence competent to efifect 
 such change. 
 
 Does this definition find its shadow in "the figure of bap- 
 tism" before us? So complete is the resemblance that we 
 are tempted to believe that the one was directly sketched 
 from the other. This is not so; they were not taken, the 
 one from the other, but both were taken from one original, — 
 the Classic writers. Hence the perfect resemblance between 
 " the figure" of Tertullian and "the conclusion" of Classic 
 Baptism. We originate no novelty in the ecclesiastical 
 usage of this word. We rest squarely on the Classic founda- 
 tion. The only novelty is in the application of the word to 
 a class of things with which • heathen writers had no ac- 
 quaintance; thus increasing its domain without changing 
 
BAPTISM OF THE WATERS BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD. 137 
 
 its pryiciple. The "figure" resemblance, in this case, con- 
 sists in the change of condition in the waters, by the new 
 "quality" imparted to them through the influence of the 
 Holy Spirit. This was itself a baptism, yet, only, a figure 
 of the baptism. The lamb slain on Abel's altar was a sac- 
 rifice, yet, only a figure of the sacrifice of the Lapib of God 
 slain on Calvary. 
 
 The Agent. — The agent in this baptism was the Holy 
 Spirit. The quo modo of any baptism is never governed by 
 the word. The mode, by which the baptism was effected in 
 this case, Tertullian is very particular in stating was neither 
 by " dipping," nor by any act " effecting a complete cover- 
 ing;" but by "moving above" and "resting upon." He 
 lays it down as a received axiom that "the decumbent 
 must receive the quality of the superincumbent." Thus 
 the waters were penetrated and pervaded by a holy quality 
 received from the incumbent Holy Spirit; and, still more, 
 were endued with the power to communicate such quality; 
 in other words became capable of baptizing — changing con- 
 dition by imparting the quality of sanctity. Without bear- 
 ing in mind this new power claimed to be conferred on the 
 waters. Patristic baptism can never be 'Understood. 
 
 The Object. — The object in this baptism was "the waters." 
 Dr. Carson insists that a dipping must be impossible before 
 a secondary meaning can have any hearing. Will those who 
 have fallen heirs to his sentiments, tell us where the possi- 
 bility of a dipping is to be found here ? Gale could hyper- 
 bolize the waters of a lake into the scanty pool of a frog's 
 blood; but where is the hyperbole to come from, or where 
 is the tiny pool to be found, when the object for dipping is 
 " the waters " swathing the globe, before "the dry land was 
 made to appear?" 
 
 But while "the waters " are the object of baptism in this 
 case, they stand in another relation, entirely, in the baptism. 
 They there become the agent in baptism, and execute the 
 function for which they are now qualified — ^'-sanctified and 
 with power to sanctify.'^ That water is an agency in baptism, 
 exercising a positive power, eoiitrolliug the- moral condition 
 
188 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 of those subject to its influence, is another Patristiq idea, 
 without whose aid their baptism cannot be rightly inter- 
 preted. 
 
 Iniinctos. — The friends of the theory may here smile and 
 say, " At last we have a dip." We could almost wish that 
 it were so, they have been so often and so sorely disap- 
 pointed ; but it is not a very hopeful case. Let us suppose, 
 however, that Tertullian does, here, speak of ''the dipped," 
 what is the precise value of the statement? Is it replied: 
 " It teaches that when men were baptized they were ' dipped,' 
 and therefore to baptize is to dip?" Festina lente; do not 
 draw conclusions too fast. Cloth is dyed by dipping, there- 
 fore to dye means to dip ! Is that the logic ? Has it not been 
 settled, even to Dr. Carson's satisfaction, that dyeing is not 
 dipping, and dipping is not dyeing? And has it not been set- 
 tled, on yet stronger evidence, that " baptizing is not dipping, 
 and dipping is not baptizing?" Whatever place, then, dip- 
 ping might have in a baptism, it cannot represent /SaTrWCw. 
 This inquiry, then, is not affected if "intinctos" should be 
 written down " dipped." But before that is done, let us re- 
 flect on some things which otherwise might require it to be 
 undone. Does not iingo mean to dye? " Certainly." And 
 does not iingo, also, cease to express color and declare a 
 quality (as of honesty, justice,) without color? "But, what 
 has that to do with ' intinctos ' applied to loater ?" Just this : 
 the water of Patristic baptism is '■^sanctified'' water, and is 
 capable of "sanctifyi'ng" that which is dipped into it, or 
 that which is sprinkled by it; therefore the sanctified or bap- 
 tized condition induced by this water-agency is no more the 
 dipping which puts the object into it, than is the dyed con- 
 dition of the cloth the dipping which put it into the coloring- 
 tub. 
 
 That Tertullian had no idea of limiting this word to the 
 action of dipping, is manifest by its adjunct, "intinctos re- 
 for7naturum." Were " the dipped " to be " made over again," 
 by the act of dipping into simple water? Did Tertullian be- 
 lieve any such thing ? Did any Patristic writer believe any 
 such thing? Did not he, and others, believe that men dip* 
 
BAPTISM OF THE WATERS BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD. 139 
 
 ped into water, "penetrated and pervaded witli a quality 
 communicated by the Holy Spirit," were, by this "quality," 
 "reformed," regenerated, intincted with a divine influence? 
 And did they not believe that this "quality" was able (Dr. 
 Carson to the contrary notwithstanding) io baptize, to iniind, 
 to regenerate, to purify from sin, to save, to change the con- 
 dition of the sold, by sprinkling as well as by dipping? I^o 
 man, who will take the trouble to read the testimony on 
 these points, will think of denying this. An intelligent ap- 
 prehension of all the features of the case, will place a very 
 imperative veto on the confounding of the "intinctos" with 
 the merel}' dipped, or a dipping with a baptism. 
 
 I should have preferred saying nothing, at present, on these 
 features of Patristic baptism, had not the case, as presented, 
 seemed to make it imperative. I only add a testimony or 
 two from the Classics, to show that water may be " intincted," 
 have quality without color imparted to it: Et incerto font- 
 em medicamine tinxit. — Metamorph., iv, 388. " Tincted or 
 infected the fountain with a doubtful drug." 
 
 An quia cunctarum contraria semina rerum 
 Sunt duo, discordes ignis et unda Dei, 
 Junxerunt olementa patres : aptumque putarunt 
 Ignibus et spursa tingeee corpus aqua? 
 
 Fastorum, iv, 787-790. 
 
 Here is the body tincted without being colored, by ^^ sprinkled 
 water,'' used in religious rites. It is perilous for controver- 
 sialists to stake their all on naked words. Verbal alliances 
 constitute a new power which will make itself to be felt. 
 Chemical elements, in combination, lose their isolated char- 
 acter. Individuals, in social organization, give up old rights 
 and secure new ones. Words, in organic phrases, modify 
 tbeir individuality, by giving to and receiving from associ- 
 ate words. Tingo cannot' put on an abstract unchangeability, 
 but must submit to universal law, and take character from 
 the company it keeps. 
 
 The views of Tertullian on this passage are not peculiar, 
 but fairly represent the views of his times. This will suffi- 
 ciently appear from one or two quotations. 
 
140 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Jerome ii, 161. " Quomodo antiquis sordibus anima purga- 
 tur, quae sanctum non habet Spiritum ? ISTeque enim aqua 
 lavat animairi, sed prius lavatur a Spiritu, ut alios lavare 
 spiritualiter possit. Spiriius, inquit Moyses, Domini ferebaiur 
 super aquas. (Gen. 1, 2.) Ex quo apparet baptisma non esse 
 sine Spiritu sancto. Bethesda lacus Judsese, nisi per adven- 
 tum Angeli, debilitata corporaliter membra sanare non po- 
 terat : et tu mihi aqua simplici, quasi de balneo animam lotam 
 producis ?" 
 
 This passage brings into bold relief the following points : 
 
 1. Simple water, however used, by dipping, covering, 
 sprinkling, pouring, or with whatsoever formularies, how- 
 ever orthodox, associated, cannot effect Jerome's baptism. 
 
 2. In Jerome's baptism the soul is "washed,"=cleansed, 
 (antiquis sordibus purgatur,) changed in condition. 
 
 3. To effect this change of condition in the soul, the water 
 itself must first be changed by a new quality imparted to it 
 by the Holy Spirit. 
 
 4. In proof that such change in the water is effected, he 
 quotes Genesis 1:2: " The Spirit of the Lord was borne above 
 the waters.^' 
 
 As the Classics teach us that tbere are two baptisms of 
 wine, most absolutely distinct in nature, the one resulting 
 from its mersing quality, the other from its intoxicating 
 quality; so Jerome teaches that there are two baptisms of 
 water, as absolutely distinct in nature; the one due to its 
 mersing quality, the other due to its soul-sanctifying quality, 
 imparted by the Holy Spirit. The first of these wine bap- 
 tisms is exemplified by Richard drowning Clarence; the 
 second by Thebe intoxicating Alexander. The first of these 
 wate»r baptisms is that of Arian, who uses simple water be- 
 cause "he has not the Holy Spirit." The second is that of 
 Jerome, who employs water having a sanctifying quality 
 able " to change the condition of the soul." 
 
 The limitation of baptism to a dipping or a covering, is a 
 thought nowhere to be found among Classics or Patrists. 
 To bring such a conception to expound the subject of bap- 
 tisms, is like using a dark lantern to illumine the realms of 
 
BAPTISM OF THE WATERS BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD. 141 
 
 Erebus. The mode of baptism employed by Ariaii and by 
 Jerome, may have been the same. Both may have dipped 
 their disciples; but those of Arian came out of their dipping 
 unbaptized, and those of Jerome came out of their dipping 
 baptized, for precisely the same reason that cloth dipped 
 into mere water comes forth uncolored, and dipped into dye- 
 water, comes forth colored. Jerome knew nothing of the 
 theory that "baptizing is dipping, and dipping is baptizing." 
 
 A passage of like import may be found in Ambrose, ii, 1583: 
 ^^ Bapiizaius est ergo Dominus non mundari volens, sed mun- 
 dare aquas; ut ablutse per earn em Christi, quae peccatum non 
 cognovit, baptismatis jus haberent." 
 
 Here we have inculcated : 1. That a divine influence was 
 exerted over the waters. 2. That, by virtue of this divine 
 influence, the waters were invested with the power of baptism. 
 
 If, now, it be a token of lunacy to deny that water has, of 
 essence, and not by accident, "the power" to receive any 
 object dipped into it; and if Ambrose denies that water has, 
 by its essential nature, the "jus bapiis7naiis," and only pos- 
 sesses it through a special quality, extraordinarily conferred, 
 then, either Ambrose was a lunatic, or "jus baptismatis" 
 means something else than a quality making competent for 
 a dipping. All, not inextricably involved in the theory, will 
 be likely to conclude that Ambrose was of a sound mind, 
 and that "the power of baptism," divinely conferred, was 
 the power to change the condition of the soul by spiritual 
 cleansing. 
 
 Tertullian, Jerome, Ambrose, and a great cloud of associ- 
 ates, knew nothing of a baptism characterized by definite 
 action. Their baptism was, and was only, one of changed 
 condition, however effected. Patristic baptism was a changed 
 condition of the soul, effected by the influence of water, 
 through a quality specially and divinely imparted to it. 
 
 Allow me to conclude by giving a definition of baptism 
 from Basil Magnus, iii, 736 : 
 
 ^Tiq 6 XoYoq 7J jy 8uva{j.cq too ^anTcff/xaro^j To aXkocwdr^vat tov ^anTtZd- 
 ft£vo\j xard re vouv, xai Xoyov^ xcll npa^iv^ xai yeviadai exslvo xard ttjv dodeTffav 
 dOvauiv, onep iazc to i^ at iyevvjdyj. 
 
142 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 " What is the purport and the power of baptism ? That 
 the baptized, be changed as to thought, word, and act, and 
 become, through the power conferred, the same as that of 
 which he is born." 
 
 I present this definition, 1. Because the Latin translation 
 — " Quse sit ratio aut vis baptismatis?" — presents ^^ ratio " iu 
 the same relation to baptism (ratio baptismi) as does the ex- 
 tract from TertuUian. 
 
 2. Because of the identity of conception between this defi- 
 nition of baptism, as given bj Basil, and that given in "the 
 conclusion" of Classic Baptism. 
 
 " The conclusion " is more comprehensive than the defini- 
 tion of Basil, because made to comprise all baptisms, while 
 his contemplates the class of baptisms effected by influential 
 agencies. 
 
 Compare "the conclusion," as explained, p. 57: "What- 
 ever influence is capable of thoroughly changing the charac- 
 ter, state, or condition of any object, bi/ pervading it and 
 making it subject to its own characteristic, is capable of baptiz- 
 ing that object," with the definition of Basil, "That the 
 baptized be changed, as to thought, word, and act, and be- 
 come, through the power conferred, the same as that of 
 which he is born." 
 
 " The conclusion " was deduced from a collation of all the 
 passages relating to baptism in Greek classic writings, and 
 the definition of Basil was derived from immediate personal 
 knowledge of the usage of his native tongue. 
 
 " The conclusion " and the definition, weighed over against 
 each other, do not differ so much as by the weight of the dust 
 in the balances. 
 
 TertuUian, also, and Basil, are in perfect accord on this 
 subject. 
 
 It is a hopeless task, then, to look any longer for a "dip- 
 ping" in this "figure of baptism." 
 
 Reference may be had to the following, among many other 
 passages : 
 
 Peccata enim purgare ethominem sanctificare aqua sola non 
 potest nisi habeat et Spiritum sanctum. — TertuUian, iii, 1132. 
 
BAPTISM OF A FOUNTAIN BY A TREE. 14S 
 
 Aqua opus est, operatic Spiritus sancti est. 'Hon sanat 
 aqua, nisi Spiritus descenderit. — Ambrose, iii, 422. 
 
 Et bene in exordio creaturse baptismi figura signatur, per 
 quod haberit creatura mundari. (743.) 
 
 Plurima baptismatum genera prsemissa sunt, quia secutum 
 erat verum illud unum. (1248.) 
 
 As illustrative of ^Hniincios" the following has special 
 value : ♦ 
 
 Ilpiv yj rolvuv ineXSslv ttjv dXyj^rj rod IIvsv[xaroq ^af^v, k^dXei(pov rat; 
 xaxmq ivTs^eiffaq aoi auvrjSdaq. — Chrysostom, ii, 235. 
 
 Any overbold man, offering this passage to Dr. Carson 
 to prove that ^a^i^v meant something else than a dip;ping, 
 must expect a plentiful sprinkling of his characteristic "At- 
 tic salt." Yet, after all, the xlvii Prop, of Euclid does not 
 challenge more absolute assent to its Q. E. D., than does 
 this passage and its context demand assent to the clearness 
 of its representation, as exhibiting the Holy Spirit removing 
 sin-spots from the soul, as a painter imperfect colors from a 
 picture, and using the waters of baptism, not for a dipping, 
 but, as a painter, his last choicest colors, for tincting the soul 
 and bringing it into a changed, spotless condition. 
 
 Carson's demand for the "impossibility" of dipping^ is 
 here met four-square. 
 
 BAPTISM OF A rOIINTAIN BT A TEEE. 
 
 Exodus 15 : 23-25. 
 
 "And when they came to Marah they could not drink of the 
 waters of Marah, for they were bitter; therefore the name of it 
 was called Marah. 
 
 " And the people murmured against Moses, saying. What shall 
 we drink? 
 
 " And he cried unto the Lord; and the Lord showed him a tree, 
 which when he had cast into the waters, the waters were made 
 sweet." 
 
 'Multa sunt genera baptismatum, sed unum baptisma, clamat 
 Apostolus. (Eph. 4 : 5.) Quare ? Sunt baptismata gentium, sed 
 
144 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 non sunt baptismata. Lavacra sunt, baptisraata esse non pos- 
 Bunt. Caro lavatur, non culpa diluitur; immo in illo lavacro 
 contrabitur. Erant autem baptismata Judaeorum. (Mark 7:8), 
 alia superflua, alia in figura. Et figura ipsa nobis proficit, quia 
 veritatis est nuncia. — Ambrose, iii, 424. 
 
 Aliud (genus baptismatis) etsi non ordinem tenemus . . . 
 Moyses misit lignum in fontem, et coepit aqua quae antea erat 
 amara, dulcescere. Quid significat, nisi quia omnis creatura 
 corruptelse obnoxia, aqua amara est omnibus . . . amara est 
 qusB non potest auferre peccatum. Amara ergo aqua: sed ubi 
 crucem Cbristi, ubi acceperis coeleste sacramentum, incipit esse 
 dulcis et suavis; et merito dulcis, in qua culpa revocatur. Ergo 
 ei in figura tantum valuerunt baptismata, quanto amplius valet 
 baptisma in veritate ? iii, 427. 
 
 Sicut ergo in ilium fontem Moyses misit lignum, boc est pro- 
 pheta; ita et in bunc fontem sacerdos prsedicationem DominicsB 
 crucis mittit, et aqua fit dulcis ad gratiam. (iii, 393.) . . . et 
 amaritudinem suam aquarum natura deposuit, quam infusa 
 Bubito gratia temperavit. (406.) . . . non utique dubitandum est 
 quod superveniens (Spiritus sanctus) in fontem, vel super eos 
 qui baptismum consequuntur, veritatem regenerationis opere- 
 tur. (410".) 
 
 Myrrbse fontis araaritudine per ligni gratiam temperata, cog- 
 noscimus esse mundatos. — Ambrose, ii, 1434. 
 
 Obx dird ^uXoo -yXuxavdij udmp, icg to yvcuffSr^vai zijv layhv duroo. 
 
 Wisdom of Sirach, 88 : 5. 
 
 OLD QUALITY CHANGED AND NEW QUALITY IMPARTED. 
 
 PATRISTIC INTERPRETATION. 
 
 "There are many kinds of baptisms, but the Apostle an- 
 nounces one baptism. Why? There are baptisms of the Gen- 
 tiles, but they are not baptisms. They are washings, they can- 
 not be baptisms. The body is washed; sin is not washed away: 
 nay by that washing it is contracted. But there were baptisms 
 of the Jews (Mark 7 : 8), some unnecessary, others in figure. 
 And the very figure is profitable to us, because it is the messen- 
 ger of truth." — Ambrose, iii, 424. 
 
 " There is another kind of baptism, although we do not pre- 
 
BAPTISM OF A FOUNTAIN BY A TKEE. 145 
 
 serve the order. . . . Moses cast the wood into the fountain, and 
 the water which before was bitter grew sweet. What does this 
 signify, except that every creature liable to corruption, the 
 water is bitter to all ... . that is bitter which cannot take 
 away sin. "Water, therefore, is bitter; but when thou shalt have 
 received the cross of Christ and the heavenly sacrament, it be- 
 comes sweet and pleasant: and that is with reason sweet, by 
 which sin is revoked. Therefore, if in figure merely baptisms 
 were so powerful, how much more powerful is baptism in reality? 
 (427.) 
 
 " As, therefore, Moses cast the wood into the fountain, this la 
 prophetic; so, also, does the priest cast the proclamation of the 
 Lord's cross into this fountain and the water is made sweet for 
 grace. (393.) . . . the waters lay aside their natural bitterness, 
 which infused grace has quickly attempered. (406.) . . . and 
 certainly it is not to be doubted that the Holy Spirit coming 
 over upon the fountain, or over those who obtain baptism, 
 effects true regeneration. (410.) 
 
 '^The bitterness of the fountain of Myrrhse being attempered 
 by the grace of the wood, we know that they were made pure 
 (baptized)." — Ambrose, ii, 1434. 
 
 '^ Was not the water made sweet by wood, in order that its 
 power might be made known?" — Wisdom of Sirach, 38 :5. 
 
 Points claiming attention. 
 
 The substantial resemblance between the baptism of this 
 fountain by " wood," (symbol of the Cross,) changing its 
 condition of bitterness, and the baptism of the waters by the 
 incumbent Spirit changing their condition by imparting a 
 new quality, is too evident, and sufficiently explained by 
 remarks on the latter baptism, to require more than the 
 calling attention, briefly, to some additional points. 
 
 1. " There are many lands of baptisms." This is a flat con- 
 tradiction of the theory that tells us, whether it be of a world 
 or a flea's foot, whether of saint or of sinner, whether in 
 heathendom or in Christendom, whether in fact or in figure, 
 a baptism is an unalterable unity; "a definite act;" "a mode, 
 and nothing but mode;" a change in it is a destruction of 
 it. Over against this theory, which has nothing to sustaiii 
 
 10- 
 
146 JUDAIC BAPTISM 
 
 it but self-assertion, Ambrose writes : " There are many kinds 
 of baptisms.'"' 
 
 Inasmuch as we have seen this statement emphatically sus- 
 tained by the facts of " Classic Baptism," we take sides with 
 the Milanese Bishop. 
 
 2. " There are baptisms of the Gentiles, hut they are not bap- 
 tisms." If those who have a right to write authoritatively 
 on the subject, had never written anything else but this sen- 
 tence and context, it would be enough to establish a twofold 
 meaning of the word "baptism," and to overturn the theory 
 which contradicts it. 
 
 Ambrose does not commit the absurdity of saying that 
 the Gentiles have ?zo baptisms ; no secular baptisms. He is 
 discoursing on religion, and he asserts that, in their religious 
 rites, they have nothing which can be called " baptism," In 
 the sense in which he uses that term, because they have no 
 use of water under any form of ^'washing," which is capable 
 of changing the condition of the soul, by taking away sin. 
 " Washings," by sprinkling, pouring, dipping, covering, they 
 have for the bod}-; "baptisms," which cleanse the soul, they 
 have not. In the vocabulary of Ambrose, "baptism " did hot 
 mean a definite act; it did mean a change of condition in the 
 soul, through the influence of a quality divinely communi- 
 cated to the water. 
 
 3. ^^ There is another kind of baptism." Having referred to 
 a baptism in connection with the axe lost in the Jordan, 
 (which we will meet with hereafter,) Ambrose says: " There 
 is another kind of baptism;" and then states that of the foun- 
 tain of Myrrha, which is before us. If these baptisms strike 
 any one as novelties, let them remember the conclusions 
 reached in " Classic Baptism," and reflect whether the two 
 be not in the most perfect harmony. The theory insists that 
 there can be but "one baptism." Unfortunately our theor- 
 ists have confounded a dipping and a baptism, and have thereby 
 got into a world of trouble. They can only escape by get- 
 ting rid of this sad error — fons et origo malorum. 
 
 As Tertullian declares that "the waters" were baptized, 
 changed in condition, by a new quality imparted to them by 
 
BAPTISM OF A FOUNTAIN BY A TREE. 147 
 
 the influence of the Holy Spirit, so Ambrose declares that 
 this fountain of water was baptized, changed in condition, 
 by the removal of a quality, through the influence of a tree, 
 Bymbolizing the cross of Christ. 
 
 4. '■^That is bitter loliich cannot take away sin.'' This water, 
 made sweet, and impregnated with the influence of this 
 symbol tree, was able " to take away sin ;"=to baptize ; " cog- 
 noscimus esse mundatos." If any one asks liow ? I answer, 
 by drinking. For the principle involved — baptism by drink- 
 ing — we have abundance of authority, not only in wine- 
 drinking baptism, and in opiate-drinking baptism, but in 
 baptism by drinking at a fountain. If the fountain of Si- 
 lenus was capable of baptizing after that "kind of baptism" 
 appropriate to its peculiar quality, why should not the foun- 
 tain of Myrrha baptize those who drank of it, after that 
 "kind of baptism" appropriate to the new quality with 
 which it had become impregnated ? 
 
 Ambrose is as classically orthodox in his mode of baptiz- 
 ing, as he is in the nature of his baptism. His theology is 
 another matter. 
 
 5. "-Z/" baptisms in figure are so powerful." It should be 
 written deeply on every mind, that this Myrrha, and other 
 kindred transactions, are declared, in absolute terms, to be 
 "baptisms." They are not something else, in fact, and only 
 entitled quasi baptisms by a theological fiction. They are 
 "baptisms" in their own right, and "powerful" baptisms, 
 too. As such, they " figure " another baptism higher and 
 mightier than themselves. This is the doctrine of Ambrose. 
 Dipping finds no more countenance in this Myrrha baptism 
 of the Patrists, efiected by wood thrown into it, than by the 
 wine-baptism of the Classics, effected by water poured into it. 
 
 The quotation from Ecclesiasticus shows the controlling 
 power of the wood over the water, rendering it competent 
 to thoroughly change its. condition. Classic Baptism has 
 shown that the development of such a power constitutes a 
 baptism. And we have that conclusion reiterated by Am- 
 brose, in declaring that the changed condition of the foun- 
 tain of Myrrha was a baptism. 
 
148 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 So Ovid says of the fountain Salmacis, "vis est notissima 
 fontis, . . . et incerto fontem medicamine iinxit." If iingo can 
 express a quality imparted to the fountain Salmacis, why 
 may not ISaTTTi^co be used to express a quality imparted to the 
 fountain Myrrha? The change from the primary meaning, 
 is no greater in one case than in the other. The evidence 
 that such change does take place, in fact, is as great in the 
 latter case as in the former. 
 
 BAPTISMS BY WATEE. 
 
 CHANGE OF CONDITION THROUGH INFLUENCE. 
 
 DELUGE PURIFICATION. 
 
 Genesis 6 : 13 ; 7 : 1, 18, 22. 
 
 1. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before 
 me ; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and be- 
 hold I will destroy them with the earth. 
 
 7 : 1. And the Lord said unto Noah, Come thou, and- all thy 
 house, into the ark; for thee have I seen righteous before me in 
 this generation. 
 
 Y. 18. And the waters prevailed, and were increased greatly 
 upon the earth ; and the ark went upon the face of the waters. 
 
 V. 22. All in whose nostrils was the breath of life, of all that 
 was in the dry land, died. 
 
 Interpreiaiion. 
 
 Quemadmodum enim post aquas diluvii, quibus iniquitas an- 
 tiqua purgata est, post Baptismum (ut ita dixerim) mundi. — 
 Tertullian, i, 1209. 
 
 Nam ut in illo mundi baptismo, quo iniquitas antiqua purgata 
 est, qui in area Noe non fuit non potuit per aquam salvatus fieri ; 
 ita nee nunc potest per baptismum salvatus videri qui baptiz- 
 atus in Ecclesia non est. — Cyprian, 1136. 
 
 In diluvio quoque figuram baptismatis prsecessisse hesterno 
 coepimus disputare. Quid est diluvium, nisi in quo Justus ad 
 seminarium justitise reservatur, peceatum moritur? . . . Nonne 
 hoc et diluvium, quod est baptismum; quo peccata omnia diluuD- 
 tur, sola justi mens et gratia resuscitatur? — Ambrose, iii, 423. 
 
MUCH WATER AND THE THEORY. 149 
 
 'Non tarn diluvium quam baptismum contigisse. Baptismus 
 plane fuit, per quod in peccatoribus iniquitas sublata est, Noe 
 justitia conservata. — iv, 650. 
 
 Trjv o5v Tuu /SanTia/JLaTo^ X^P'-'^ xaraxXofffiov dvofidZei. — Basil, i, 304. 
 Kal 6 xaraxXuaiibq . . . npoetp-jrevsv . . . zcuv d/iapTcaJv xaSapcfffiov. — 
 Didymus Alex., 696. 
 
 Translation. 
 
 "For as after the waters of the deluge, by which the old ini- 
 quity was purged, after the baptism (as I might have said) of 
 the world."— Tertullian, i, 1209. 
 
 " For as in that baptism of the world, by which the old ini- 
 quity was purged, he who was not in the ark of Noah, could not 
 be saved, so, now, neither can he be saved who is not baptized 
 in the church." — Cyprian, 1136. 
 
 " That a figure of baptism, in the deluge, also went before, we 
 began to argue yesterday. What is the deluge, but that by which 
 the righteous is preserved as a seed of righteousness, while sin 
 perishes ? .... Is not this deluge the same as baptism, by 
 which all sins are washed away, and the soul of the righteous, 
 and grace alone, preserved?" — Ambrose, iii, 423. 
 
 "l>fot so much a deluge, as a baptism, occurred. Baptism it 
 clearly was, because, with sinners, iniquity was taken away; 
 with ISToah, righteousness was preserved." — iv, 650. 
 
 *< 'The Lord inhaUteth the flood.'' (Ps. 28 : 10.) A flood is an over- 
 flow of water, covering all that is under it, and purifying every 
 defilement. Therefore he calls the grace of baptism a flood; so 
 that the soul washed from sin, and cleansed from the old man, 
 may be, afterwards, a fit habitation of God, by his Spirit." — 
 Basil, i, 304. 
 
 " The deluge foretold the purification of sins." — Bidy. Al., 696. 
 
 MUCH WATER AND THE THEORY. 
 
 Here is an abundance of water. What will the friends of 
 the theory do with it ? There is " a complete covering." 
 Will that answer the purpose? Dr. Carson thinks that he 
 can get a dipping out of this deluge, by the help oi figure. 
 But, observe, his figure is a very different affair from that 
 of Patrist exposition. They make one baptism, by its essen- 
 tial nature, to figure another baptism to which it is generic- 
 
150 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 ally related; but Carson calls on figure to help him make a 
 baptism. As the facts of the deluge stand, outtopping the 
 highest mountains by fifteen cubits, there is no dipping, and 
 therefore (according to the theory) no baptism, for "baptism 
 is dipping, and dipping is baptism." Kow, Carson calls on 
 figure to help him to change the facts, and claims a transac- 
 tion — whose record contradicts his theory — as all on his side, 
 after it has been made something else than it is. 
 
 This ever recurring demand on figure to help a false theory 
 out of trouble, reminds us of the constant necessity of the 
 old astronomers to add cycle and epicycle to work on with 
 their mistaken conception. There is difterence, however, 
 in the two cases; the astronomer hung appendages to his 
 theory, to meet the facts, while the Baptist hangs append- 
 ages to the facts, to meet his theory. 
 
 This flood of waters, covering its object for a large portion 
 of a year, lends but little comfort to those who accept some 
 modification of the action, yet insist on a momentary cover- 
 ing. The subject of baptism can no more be mastered with 
 "momentary covering" for a starting-point, than can un- 
 shorn Samson be bound with seven green withes. Baptist 
 argumentation is not susceptible of being amended. It must 
 go back and start, ah initio^ with a new element of thought, 
 and follow it through its developments. Old facts will, then, 
 assume new aspects, and this deluge baptism will be quite 
 intelligible. Figure and epicycle, alike, may be thrown aside 
 when the true central thought has been secured. 
 
 Besides the dipping of the world into the flood, by the 
 help of figure, Carson speaks, repeatedly, throughout his 
 book, of the baptism of ISToah in the fiood. This is his 
 language: "What! ISToah not immersed, when buried in 
 the waters of the flood ? Are there no bounds to perverse- 
 ness? Will men say everything rather than admit the mode 
 of an ordinance of Christ, which is contrary to the command- 
 ments of men?" (p. 388.) "What could be a more expres- 
 sive burial in water than to be in the ark, when it was 
 floating? As well might it be said that a person is not 
 buried in earth, when lying in his coffin covered with earth. 
 
MUCH WATER A WD THE THEORY. 151 
 
 May not a person in a ship be said figuratively to be buried 
 in the sea? They who were in the ark were deeply im- 
 mersed." (p. 418.) " 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." (p. 462.) 
 
 Will any one expect a sober answer to erratic imaginings 
 like these? The expositor who is willing to follow a rigid 
 theory to issues like these, and indorse to bankruptcy its 
 demands on common sense, must look for the issuing, at 
 the next session of the court, of a writ de lunaiico inquirendo. 
 "Much theory doth make thee mad," honest though not 
 courteous, truth-loving though not sober-minded, Carson! 
 
 It is a reproach to truth to admit the claims of so poor 
 a counterfeit, even to a hearing. "IToah and his family" 
 (beasts, birds, and creeping things,) "buried in the flood and 
 emerging" (on the summit of Ararat) "as from the grave!" 
 What next? 
 
 SPECIAL VALUE. 
 
 There is an especial value in this case of Deluge Baptism 
 as enabling us to point out, within itself, some of the "many 
 kinds of baptisms." 
 
 1. If we regard the earth merely as a physical body and 
 the water as encompassing it, we have an illustration of a 
 simple mersion (baptism) icithout influence. 
 
 2. If we regard the earth as having cultivated fields, houses, 
 cities, works of art, then this universal deluge becomes a 
 mersion (baptism) with influence, ruinous in its character. 
 
 3. If we take into view men, inhabiting the world and 
 nnrepenting sinners against God, for whose punishment this 
 flood of waters was sent, then, it becomes a mersion (bap- 
 tism) /or influence, designed to destroy — to drown men. 
 
 4. But neither of these is the baptism contemplated, and 
 drawn out from the case, by the Patrists. They regarded 
 the earth as defiled and needing to be purified — O aqua, 
 quse humano aspersum sanguine, ut prsesentium lavacrorum 
 figura prsecederet, orbem terrarum lavisti ! [Ambrose, ii, 
 1815.) The world is here represented as polluted by murder, 
 
152 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 being "sprinkled with human blood," and as cleansed by 
 being " washed " bj the deluge waters. This, then, was con- 
 ceived of, not as a physical mersion, but as a baptism for 
 religious purification, accomplished by water through its 
 quality, divinely communicated, to purge and sanctify. 
 
 But it may be asked. Was not the water, in fact, used in 
 the form of mersion ? Undoubtedly, yet not as a necessity, 
 but accident, which may or may not be in such baptism. 
 Cloth dyed (^fid-ziu) may be dyed by dipping {pd-rm) : yet "dip- 
 ping" is not an essential to " dyeing," but an accident which 
 may or may not be present. In a baptism for pwijication, 
 mersion, in like manner, may or may not be present. And 
 whenever present it is not to be regarded as a feature, much 
 less the feature of the baptism; any more than dipping, when 
 it chances to be the form, is to be regarded as the dyeing. 
 Proof of this may be found in a perfectly analogous case 
 from Chrysosiom, ii, 409. 
 
 ''ETZs.idij Tzaaa rj yr/ xo-s. d/Adapro'z ^v and rod xaTzvou, xai t^? xvi<Tff7j<;, 
 xai Twv eldwXixujv ai/xdrwy, xai rwv alXwv iioXuffiiibv riuv '^E?J.rjvuaJv. 
 
 " When the whole earth was, then, defiled by the smoke, 
 and fame, and blood of idol sacrifices, and other pollutions. 
 . . . But Christ having come, and having sufifered without 
 the city, he purified the whole earth [-dffav rijv -p,v h.ddript):^ 
 How this was done is stated, more definitely, in a few lines 
 preceding: 
 
 "Effra^e yap to a"/j.a a-o zr/^ -Xeupaq tnX rijv yr^v, xai zov /loXuff/idv auzr^^ 
 airavza igsxddrjpsv. 
 
 "For the blood from his side dropped upon the earth, 
 and thoroughly purged away the pollution." 
 
 We have, here, evidence that a world may be defiled by 
 all manner of pollution, and instead of a necessity for a mer- 
 .sion in water, outtopping all mountain tops, in order to its 
 ^purification, drops of blood falling from the spear-pierced side are 
 adequate for the purification of all the earth. 
 
 To the objection that the word "baptism" is not used in 
 this latter case, it may be replied, 1. All the facts — condition 
 to be removed, pollution; mode of remedy, dropping blood; 
 oCQuditian .effected, purification ; as well as all the terms em- 
 
MUCH WATER AND THE THEORY. 153 
 
 ployed, are identical with the facts and terms in other cases 
 to which the title of *' baptism" is given. 2. A secondary 
 use of "baptism" covering this case is in proof. 3. We 
 shall yet have overwhelming evidence establishing the same 
 point. 4. A mersion baptism is distinctly repudiated in the 
 present case, and a baptism for purification is presented. 
 
 " The old iniquity was purged by the waters of the deluge," 
 therefore, (not because of the covering,) it is called " a bap- 
 tism of the world." " The deluge is the same as baptism " — 
 "Why? Because they both " wash sins away." The dropping 
 blood from the Redeemer's side is the same as baptism — 
 Why? Because it "washes sin away." "Not so much a 
 deluge as a baptism." What does this mean ? Not so much 
 a deluge as a dipping, an immersion, a covering ? Is not this 
 an utterly impossible, absurd, interpretation ? Is it not ex- 
 pressly said, — " because sin was removed and righteousness 
 established?" Could there be a more explicit distinction 
 between a deluge and a baptism? And so, Basil, i, 304, 
 "A flood is an overflow of water, covering all that is under 
 it and purifying every defilement." Therefore he calls the 
 grace of baptism a flood, (' the Lord inhahiteih the fiood,' Ps. 
 28 : 10,) because it cleanses the soul. A flood covers to bap- 
 tize, to cleanse physically; it can only cleanse what it covers; 
 but "grace" baptizes (cleanses) the soul, and "redeeming 
 blood" baptizes (cleanses) the world, without covering it. 
 
 While, therefore, the Deluge presents an example of pri- 
 mary baptism in which the earth is mersed, by the varied 
 acts of water falling from heaven's windows and rising from 
 the bursting fountains of the de.ep, and kept for most of a 
 year in this state ; still, it is a patent fact, that this baptism 
 is not regarded in the reference to the transaction in the 
 passages before us; but another, and wholly difi*erent bap- 
 tism, namely, a purification by these waters, irrespective of 
 the form of their operation, in which they see a figure of 
 that baptism which is the highest and fullest of all purifica- 
 tions. 
 
 If such a case as this fails to lend help to the theory, where 
 will it look for succor ? 
 
154 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 CHANGE OF CONDITION THEOUGH SPECIAL INFLTJENCE 
 DIVINELY IMPARTED. 
 
 JORDAN HEALING. 
 II Kings 5 : 14. 
 
 "Then went he down and dipped himself seven times in 
 Jordan, according to the saying of the man of God: and his 
 flesh came again like unto the flesh of a little child, and he was 
 clean." 
 
 Septuagint. 
 
 Kai xarifirj Na'.;idv xai ^^aizriffaro iv rm ' lopddvrj i-zdxig xard to ^^fJ-Oi 
 ' EXcffaci J xai i-iarps(}iev ij aap^ durov loq adp^ izat.8apioo fiupou, xai ixa- 
 dapiffOrj. 
 
 " And IS'aaman went down and baptized (purified) himself in 
 the Jordan seven times, according to the word of Elisha; and 
 his flesh came again like the flesh of a little child, and he was 
 made pure." 
 
 Examination. 
 
 All trespassers are warned from this ground as belonging 
 by unquestionable right to friends of the theory. A mere 
 claim of ownership will hardly pass unchallenged. All 
 ground which is covered by fair title-deeds, or all that has 
 been won by sword and spear, in fair conflict, we will cheer- 
 fully yield. Let us see how the documents read, and under 
 what right possession is claimed. 
 
 Baptist Claim for a Dipping. 
 Carson (pp. 59-61, 313-317) vindicates the claim of the 
 theory with a force and positiveness not excelled, certainly, 
 by any other Baptist writer. His points are the following : 
 
 1. "The word occurs in the Greek translation of the Old 
 Testament, and is faithfully rendered dip in our version. — II 
 Kings 5 : 14." (p. 59.) 
 
 2. " That the Greek word signifies dip, is clear from the 
 fact that this is the meaning of the word in the original." 
 
 3. "He did what was commanded. It is described as an 
 
BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 155 
 
 immersion. He bathed, and consequently lie immersed. That 
 !N^aamau was immersed is as certain as that the word of God 
 speaks truth. He was enjoined to bathe. Was not his dip- 
 p'w^ a fulfilment of the command to bathe?" 
 
 4. " If a word is proved to dip one object, it may dip an- 
 other. IlTaaman went down and dipped himself seven times." 
 
 Carson's Points Examined. — 1. " The word {jianriZu}) in the 
 Greek translation (H Kings 5 : 14) is faithfully rendered dip 
 in our version." If any one else had made such a state- 
 ment, he would have been bespattered with "Attic salt." 
 ITone knows better than Dr. C, that "our version" is not 
 made from the Septuagint, and therefore could not have 
 translated this Greek word — "c/zp." 
 
 2. " The Greek word means dip, because the Hebrew 
 word means dip." Such a position has no reliable founda- 
 tion. Of a similar position taken by an opponent — that 
 ^anziZfo must mean wash, because it fulfils a command given 
 hy ^obu), which means to wash — he saj^s (p. 61): "Lexicog- 
 raphers, critics, and commentators, receive this as a first 
 principle, but are imposed on by a mere figment." Again, 
 of a writer who takes identically the same position as to the 
 translation of Isaiah 21 : 4, which Dr. C. takes as to II Kings 
 5 : 14 — namely, that the Greek word of the Septuagint must 
 mean the 'same as the Hebrew word translated — he says; 
 "Were this the assertion of all the lexicographers in exist- 
 ence, it is false and extravagantly foolish." (p. 315.) That 
 is to say, when Dr. C. thinks that a translating word is of 
 the same precise value as the translated word, the principle 
 which would make the translation measure the height, and 
 depth, and length, and breadth of the original, is true and 
 surpassingly wise ; but, when he thinks diflferently, then the 
 principle becomes "false and extravagantly foolish." It is 
 certainly a very admirable thing to have an autocratic critic, 
 who can never err, even when he utters contradictions. On 
 this general subject, of exact correspondence between the 
 Septuagint and the Hebrew text. Principal Fairbairn says: 
 " The Septuagint is far from being a close translation. They 
 who always expect to find in it the key to the exact mean- 
 
156 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 ing of particular words and phrases, are by no means to be 
 trusted." [Herman. Man., p. 62.) 
 
 As illustrative of the correctness of this remark, and, at 
 the same time, exhibiting a parallelism with the passage 
 under consideration, we may refer to Psalm 50 : 9. Here, 
 for the Hebrew text, (which signifies io purify, by using a 
 religious rite, without expressing any definite action,) the 
 Septuagint substitutes the sharply definite act, sprinJde, by 
 which the purification was accomplished. The principle is 
 the same in H Kings, only its development is reversed. In 
 the Hebrew we have a word expressive of definite act, and, 
 in the translation, we have a condition, which includes that, 
 and many other acts, which may be causative of such condi- 
 tion. The Hebrew, " purify with hyssop," (which, on the face 
 of it, involves sprinkling, since "hyssop " was only used for 
 this mode of purifying,) the Septuagint translates, ^^ sprinkle 
 with hyssop." In like manner ^a--i%u) includes sprinkling 
 as one of many modes by which its demanded Judaic purifi- 
 cation may be met. And this purification may be, was, 
 termed a washing. Both these points are exhibited in the 
 passage from the Son of Sirach, already considered. 
 
 How ungrounded is Dr. Carson's conclusion as to the 
 meaning of the Greek word, from the meaning (real or sup- 
 posed) of the Hebrew word, I need not farther say. 
 
 3. " He ivas enjoined to bathe." He was not enjoined to 
 bathe. To wash and to bathe are not measures of each 
 other. '^He bathed in fact." There is no sure evidence of 
 such fact. ^^He dipped himself." Satisfying evidence is want- 
 ing. ^^ He immersed himself ." Where is the proof ? 
 
 In justification of the rejection of these statements, I appeal 
 to the usage both of the Hebrew and Greek words in ques- 
 tion. ISTeither the Hebrew nor the Greek word, for zoash, 
 requires a dipping, or an immersion, or a bathing, in the more 
 common sense of that word, covering the body in water. 
 They are used where the washings are local, and where the 
 water is applied to the body, and the body is not put into 
 the water. 
 
 The Hebrew word, which is translated </ip, has, undoubt- 
 
BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 157 
 
 edly, "to dip" as its primary meaning; but this does not 
 justify Dr. C. in the dogmatic assertion, based on the word, 
 that a dipping of I^aaman took place on this occasion. The 
 word has other meanings. It answers to ^dnrm in Greek, 
 and tingo in Latin. Like these words, it has the twofold 
 radical application, to dip and to di/e, with subordinate modi- 
 fications springing out of both these meanings. A glance 
 into the Concordance of Buxtorf or of Fiirst, particularly 
 the former, will show that 7DO and pjDtO, in Hebrew, cor- 
 respond with ^dTZTCD and /Sa^rrt'Cw in Greek, tingo and mergo 
 in Latin, and dip and immerse in English. Hebrew litera- 
 ture being comparatively limited, we cannot expect to find 
 as many illustrations of varied use, as in other languages. 
 But that the Hebrew word does not necessarily mean to dip, 
 covering completely, or to dip at all, is shown by its use in 
 Genesis 37 : 31, of which the translation by the Septuagint 
 
 is — xai iiJMAuvav rhv y_<.rmva ru> aijiari. — " and they Stained the COat 
 
 (Joseph's) with the blood." Our Version is, " they dipped 
 the coat in the blood." Whichever translation be preferred, 
 two things are certain : 1. The Greek translators believed 
 that the Hebrew word had more than one meaning. 2. The 
 object of the verb is not necessarily covered by the action 
 of the verb, and therefore no immersion, no baptism takes 
 place. Joseph's coat could not be covered by the blood of a 
 kid, any more than the lake by the blood of a frog. An im- 
 mersion of the whole body is not necessarily got out of a dip- 
 ping. The word, of itself, neither dips nor covers Naaman. 
 But still farther. In I Chronicles 26 : 11, we find this 
 Hebrew word in combination with that of Jehovah, as a 
 proper name, the import of which, as given by Gesenius, is, 
 "Whom Jehovah has immersed, i. e., has purified." Now, 
 inasmuch as this eminent Hebraist finds the meaning of 
 purification growing out of this modal verb, used in ritual 
 purification ; and inasmuch as the Greek translators (in Ps. 
 50 : 9) find the modal verb sprinkle, expressive of purification; 
 and inasmuch as the correspondent Latin modal verb tingo 
 — sparsa aqua ^m^ere corpus — is used to express purification; 
 and Inasmuch as, in this passage, the Greek translators have 
 
158 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 represented this modal verb by a word which has been proven 
 to express purification in connection with Jewish rites, is he 
 not a bold man who will affirm that this word could not have 
 secured to itself the idea of purification, but must signify a 
 naked dipping? 
 
 But Dr. Carson is not satisfied with assertion which makes 
 nothing of facts like these. He must make the divine ve- 
 racity depend upon his judgment of a Hebrew word. " That 
 l^faaman was immersed, is as certain as the word of God 
 speaks truth." When the theorists make the *' Christian 
 honesty" of the general church to kick the beam, weighed 
 against their knowledge of a Greek word, I have nothing 
 to say. When the Tubbermore Theorist birches "the angel 
 Gabriel," and "sends him to school "•for ignorantly difi'er- 
 ing from him in matters of exegesis, I am quite satisfied that 
 they should settle their own quarrel. But when any man 
 makes God's truthfulness to depend on his Hebrew knowl- 
 edge, or any other knowledge, then I indignantly fling in 
 his face those words which the Holy Ghost teacheth, " Let 
 God be true, but every man a liar .'" 
 
 4. But one other point remains to be considered. " K a 
 word is proved to dip one object, it may dip another," (pro- 
 vided it is of a like character.) I can readily understand 
 what is done when it is said, " He dips his pen in the ink;" 
 "He dips his hand in the water;" but when it is said, "JSTaa- 
 man dipped himself in the water," I confess that I do not 
 find, in the words, any such distinct statement as to what was 
 done. Can a man dip himself as he dips his hand ? Can 
 you possibly tell from the Hebrew word what was done in 
 a self-dipping? If, in effecting a self- dipping, the whole 
 transaction must be modified in comparison with the dip- 
 ping of anything else, may it not be true that there is such 
 a modification of meaning that there is no dipping at all ? 
 May not the object of the verb be something else than the 
 person of ISTaaman ? Is it not unusual to employ this word 
 in connection with a dipping of the whole person? Is there 
 any other case of the kind in the Bible? Is it not unusual 
 in any other language to use this word to express a dipping 
 
BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. . 159 
 
 of the entire person? Is not, strictly speaking, self-dipping 
 an impossibility? Is there not strong reason to believe 
 that this disease was local? (See v. 11.) May not this dis- 
 eased spot (well understood between the prophet and JSTaa- 
 man, and therefore not mentioned) have been the object of 
 the verb, both in the command and in the execution of the 
 command ? 
 
 But farther. He was to dip "seven times;" and Carson 
 says, "from head to foot." Did he come out of the water 
 each time, and go in afresh, until the seventh time? Or, 
 having gone into the water, and having dipped what was 
 out of water, more or less, did he, remaining in the water, 
 dip again and again, head, &c., seven times? If this was 
 the process, then it must be admitted that he did not dip 
 himself, "from head to foot," seven times, and that, after all, 
 this dipping was but that of a part of the person. 
 
 When we examine this case, interpreted as self-dipping, 
 there is much about it which the theory leaves unillumined. 
 
 There may have been good reason why the translators re- 
 jected the simply modal character of the word, and gave, as 
 its representative, one which never means " dip," but is al- 
 ways expressive of condition, and, Judaically, of a purified 
 condition, which is just what the case demands. 
 
 But Dr. Carson objects: " If /Sajrrt'Cw here expresses puri- 
 fication, then there were seven purifications." A reference 
 to Psalm 12 : 7, "The words of the Lord are pure, .... 
 as silver 'purified seven times," will show that such conjunc- 
 tion of words is allowable. Tertullian, ii, 575, is not alarmed 
 by seve7i purifications. He represents the case as showing 
 forth power to cleanse the seven capital sins of the Gen- 
 tile nations: "Idololatria, blasphemia, homicidio, adulterio, 
 stupro, falso testimonio, fraude. Quapropter septies quasi 
 per singulos titulos in Jordane lavit, simul et ut totius heb- 
 domadis caperet expiationem; quia unius lavacri vis et pleui- 
 tudo Christo soli dicabatur." " Wherefore he washes" (not 
 dips) " in the Jordan seven times, as if for the several sins, and 
 that he might receive expiation from all seven at once; for the 
 power and fulness of one washing belonged to Christ alone." 
 
160 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Dr. Fuller, justly honored with high position among his 
 brethren, has written on baptism, and examined this par- 
 ticular passage. He thus pleads for fair dealing: " Should 
 any one review this argument, I only ask that he will quote me 
 fairly, and show me as a brother where the flaw is, and I will 
 confess it." I cannot review his book, but will try to quote 
 " fairly " his words. To prove the facility and accuracy with 
 which /?«7rT£Cw can be translated he says: "In short, the trcms- 
 lators of our Bible have, themselves, exposed the pretext that there 
 is any difficulty as to the luord baptizo. In the case of JSTaaman, 
 the Septuagint uses baptizo, and the translation renders it 
 'dip.' Then went he down and dipped (ebaptisato)" (p. 11). 
 The italics are Dr. Fuller's. I have read this statement over 
 once, twice, thrice, and twice thrice, feeling that it could 
 not possibly mean, what on its face it seemed to mean; but 
 there were the staring words charging a band of men, "of 
 whom the world was not worthy," with coldly planned 
 hypocrisy, and basing that charge upon the statement of a 
 fact, not one syllable of which, as relating to those men, was 
 true. As to the first of these charges — '■'■pretext of difficulty in 
 translating baptizo " — I will quote the words of a Baptist scholar 
 (after reading Classic Baptism), whom Dr. Fuller would 
 cheerfully confess to have but few peers among Baptist 
 scholars; they are as follows: " You have certainly shown how 
 DIFFICULT it is to frame a definition of the act of baptism., that shall 
 be free from objection, and satisfactory even to Baptists themselves.''^ 
 If this authority is not sufficient to suifuse with shame the 
 charge of "pretext of difficulty," then let me refer Dr. F. to 
 Classic Baptism, (pp. 242-4,) where he will find sufficiently 
 "exposed" the pretext that there is no difficulty in translat- 
 ing fianriZu), in the case of the Eev. Richard Fuller, D.D. As 
 to the second statement: that "dip" in II Kings 5: 14, is 
 a translation of ^aTzriZui, out of the Septuagint; a statement 
 made in, and for, an important issue, it is simply shocking. 
 Dr. Carson knew that it was not true. Dr. Fuller knew that 
 it was not true. Did they, then, design to sustain their cause 
 by a designed appeal to an untruth ? By no means. The 
 case is illustrative of the ruinous eflects of assumption and 
 
BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 161 
 
 presumption. These writers assume identity of value be- 
 tween the Hebrew word and the Greek word, and then 
 presume that it is of no consequence whether they speak of 
 the translation of one word or the other. The assumption 
 is false; the presumption is monstrous. I am sorry to say, 
 that this style of argumentation by friends of the theory is 
 not limited to the present case. They write as though they 
 were absolved from all the laws of language which interfere 
 with their idolized theory, and not satisfied with saying that 
 "idiocy" and " childhood" confess the truth of their princi- 
 ples, go on to proclaim, that if men, and angels, aye, and the 
 Deity, too, do not say '■Hi is so" it is because there is no truth 
 in them ! 
 
 I do not present this error of fact as a " flaw in the argu- 
 ment ; " it is a bottomless pit, down into which the whole 
 statement plunges out of sight. 
 
 This case is resumed (p. 38) thus : "The instance where it 
 occurs literally is in the history of l!^aaman. . . . Here, in 
 a work known by Jesus, and cited by him, we find baptizo, 
 and it is admitted on all hands to mean immerse. Jesus uses 
 the same word, and thus comir l^l is the very same act. 
 'Naaman went down and dipped himself seven times (ebap- 
 tizato) in the Jordan.' All concede that this was immersion. 
 Kow Jesus commands this very act. . . . The Septuagint 
 says, I^Taaman ^ebaptisato en to lordane.' ... In Matthew 
 3: 6 we are told that the people, ' ebaptizonto en to lordane,* 
 the very same expression." 
 
 Review of argument. — 1. "When Dr. Fuller says, "it occurs 
 literally," i. e. in primary physical sense, he assumes a vital 
 point. It is in proof that the word is used otherwise. The 
 assumption of a particular use, determinative of the question, 
 is " flaw" number one. 
 
 2. "It is admitted on all hands to mean immerse." It is 
 not admitted to mean " immerse" in the sense to dip. It is 
 not admitted to mean "immerse" as representing any defi- 
 nite act. It is not admitted to mean " immerse," only, or, 
 at all, in the Baptist use of that word. This second assump- 
 tion is " flaw " number two. 
 
 11 
 
162 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 3. "Jesus uses the same word, and thus commands tie 
 very same act." The assum.ption that the use of the same 
 word must convey the same idea, embodying the assumption 
 that the word did convey but one idea in the days of the 
 Septuagint translators, and the farther assumption that it did 
 continue for centuries after to convey but one idea, is "flaw" 
 number three. "Commands the very same act." The as- 
 sumption that any form of act was ever commanded, being 
 utterly groundless, is "flaw" numher four, Dr. Fuller being 
 himself judge; for (p. 29) he tells us, no form of act is com- 
 manded, "it matters not how the immersion is eftected." 
 
 4. "All concede that this was immersion." The assump- 
 tion of such concession being without foundation, constitutes 
 "flaw" number ^'ye. 
 
 5. " ITow Jesus commands this very act." The assumption 
 in this assertion placing Dr. F., again, in antagonism with 
 Dr. F., as well as with the anti-theorists, we have "flaw" 
 number six. 
 
 6. "The Septuagint says, 'baptized en to lordane;' the 
 New Testament says, 'baptized en to lordane;' the very 
 same expression." The assumption that the same expression 
 in a limited phrase, carries with it sameness in all governing 
 particulars, though the usage be separated by centuries, is 
 without warrant in common sense or exegetical law. 
 
 "The wool was bapted in the dyehouse to free it from all 
 greasy quality." "The wool was bapted in the dyehouse a 
 scarlet color." Dr. Fuller will admit that the same phrase, 
 here, does not carry with it the same meaning. To assume 
 that "baptized in the Jordan" in connection with a miracu- 
 lous cure of leprosy, must mean the same thing when used 
 generations after, under another dispensation, and in con- 
 nection with a religious rite, is "flaw" number seven. 
 
 Perhaps we ought to thank Dr. Fuller that he has not 
 taken under his patronage — ^'■went down and dipped seven 
 times in Jordan," (as assumption number eight,) the usual 
 argument of his friends — "went down into the water /^ and 
 thus proved (?) a dipping. 
 
 This sevenfold dipping baptism suggests the following 
 
BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 163 
 
 problem: If N'aaman was baptized seven times il thfe Jordan 
 and benefited by it, how many times must Aristobulus have 
 been baptized in the fish-pool to have been drowned b}^ it? 
 We commit this question to the charge of the arithmetical 
 section of the friends of the theory. 
 
 Jewish translators. — Having looked at this passage from the 
 Baptist point of view, one that turns on the performance of 
 an act, I now remark that it is of importance to bear in mind 
 that the translators of the Septuagint were Jews. The Jews 
 used the word Pa-ri^o) in their religious rites to express, as 
 has been proved, a change of condition irrespective of the per- 
 formance of any particular act. ISTow, in this transaction we 
 have a change of condition identical with that, removal of 
 leprosy, secured by some of their religious rites; and for 
 such change of condition the ordinary use o^ ^ar.riZu), express- 
 ing a purified condition, is appropriate. It is proper to at- 
 tribute its appearance in the passage to such national use, 
 rather than to make it the translation of a word, with which, 
 in its primary meaning, it is never, in the Septuagint nor in 
 the Classics, used as an equivalent. 
 
 Patrists. — The Patristic view of the passage sustains this 
 conclusion. Ambrose (ii, 426,) says: Diximus figurara prse- 
 cessisse in Jordane, quando iTaaraan leprosus ille mundatus 
 est. . . . Ergo habes unum baptisma. "We have said that 
 a figure of baptism preceded in the Jordan, when E'aaraan, 
 that leper, was cleansed. . . . Thus you have one kind of 
 baptism." The baptism is made to centre in the changed 
 condition, — the healing and consequent cleansing. And this 
 changed condition is attributed to a peculiar power of the 
 water, and not to the manner of using it. Quid ergo signi- 
 ficat? Yidisti aquam ; sed non aqua omnis sanat; sed aqua 
 sanat, quae habet gratiam Christi. (422.) " What, then, does 
 it signify? Thou hast seen the water; but all water doe& 
 not heal, but that water heals which has the grace of Christ." 
 The healing of Naamau did not depend upon the manner 
 of his using the waters of the Jordan, but upon the divinely 
 imparted power. The prophet specified no form of use. In 
 whatever form he used them, had he used them in a different 
 
164 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 form, they would have been equally efficacious. The Pa- 
 trists make the baptism consist in the effect produced, not 
 in the manner of use, and thus agree with the Septuagint 
 translators. • Mode of use being neither enjoined nor of con- 
 trolling value. We conclude then; if there was any dipping 
 in this case, it belongs exclusively to the Hebrew word; 
 which word no more controls the meaning of ^ar.ri'^ut, than 
 does ^d-ru) to which, and not to ^ar.riZui^ it is related in all 
 its Hebrew use. 
 
 DISEASED CONDITION CHANGED TO CONDITION OP 
 HEALTH. 
 
 BETHESDA HEALING. 
 John 5:4. 
 
 " For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool 
 and troubled the water; whosoever then first after the troubhng 
 of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease 
 he had." 
 
 '^0 oZv -KpaJToiz ^p.jjd'; jxera. rijv rapayjrjv rob udazo^ uytrj<; lyivsro. 
 
 Figure of JBaptism. 
 
 Tunc curabatur unus, nunc omnes sanantur. Non sanat bap- 
 tismus perfidorura, non mundat, sed polluit. 
 
 Ergo et ilia piscina in figura : ut credas quia in hunc fontem 
 vis divina descendit. 
 
 Habes quartum genus (baptismatis) in piscina, quando move- 
 batur aqua. — Ambrose, iii, 395, 426. 
 
 "Then one was cured, now all are healed. The baptism of 
 the unbelieving does not heal, it does not cleanse, but pollutes." 
 
 " Then, that pool is for a figure : that you may believe that 
 a divine power descends into this fountain." 
 
 " You have a fourth kind of baptism in the pool, when the 
 water was troubled." — Ambrose, iii, 395, 426. 
 
 BAPTISM BY THE POOL OF BETHESDA. 
 
 Although this transaction is recorded in the ITew Testa- 
 ment, it belongs to the Jewish economy and not to the 
 
BAPTISM BY THE POOL OF BETHESDA. 165 
 
 Christian. It is introduced here because of i/s essential 
 unity with that class of baptisms now under consideration. 
 A purgative power, beyond that merely physically washing 
 quality which belongs to all water, was attributed to the 
 Deluge. To the Jordan water, as used by Naaraan, was 
 communicated a curative power, not belonging to Arbana 
 or Pharpar, or inherently to the Jordan itself. The same is 
 true with regard to the waters of Bethesda. The usual 
 qualities of water belonged to them at all times; but " at a 
 certain season" an additional quality was divinely imparted 
 to them, by means of which they exercised a controlling in- 
 fluence over any disease subjected to their power, relieving 
 the sufferer and restoring him to perfect soundness of body. 
 
 Special Points. — 1. If there is anything determined beyond 
 controversy, as to this pool, it is that its power to baptize was 
 limited to a certain time. Ambrose is entirely explicit on this 
 point: "You have a fourth kind of baptism in the pool, 
 when the water was troubled.^' E"ow there was not one particle 
 of water added to the contents of the pool at the time of this 
 troubling. Its capability for baptism, therefore, did not arise 
 from increased depth of water. If it had capacity for physi- 
 cal mersion at this time, it had the same capacity every day 
 in the year. But it could baptize at this time, and it could 
 not baptize at any other time. IsTo water being added in the 
 one case, and none being subtracted in the other, it follows, 
 therefore, with the same rigid necessity, as does the conclu- 
 sion in any demonstrated mathematical proposition, that the 
 baptism spokeii of cannot be a physical mersion. 
 
 2. This conclusion is sealed by fact, superadded to logic, 
 showing that no physical mersion took place when this soli- 
 tary baptism took place. The baptism was effected, neither 
 by the party dipping himself, nor by being dipped by any 
 one else, but by " stepping in " [kiJ. (3ac:) the troubled water. 
 Whether these waters reached to "the ankles," or to "the 
 knees," or to "the loins," as in Ezekiel's vision, we are not 
 told ; but we are told that, entering in — though it wet but the 
 soles of the feet, as of the priests bearing the ark through 
 Jordan — effected a baptism, thoroughly changed the dis- 
 
166 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 eased condition, and brought into a condition of health. 
 But some earnest friend of the theory may cry : " Hold ! l!^o 
 dipping? Why, for what else did he 'enter in' the water, 
 but for a dipping ? Could he not have been sprinkled out of 
 the water? And, as for one to do the dipping, where was 
 the angel? Did not he, too, 'go down into the water" — both 
 the angel and the sick man — and why, if not to dip into the 
 water? i!To dipping! What but 'a lack of Christian honesty' 
 could resist such convincing evidence?" Well, I will con- 
 cede this much: the evidence for this angel dipping, is quite 
 as convincing as in some other cases, which we may look at 
 by and by. 
 
 3. A third point, claiming to be brought into bolder relief 
 by distinct mention, is the presence, in this transaction, of a 
 thorough change of condition. Proof is needless. It is i\iQ sine 
 qua non feature of the whole affair, as it is also of every bap- 
 tism. Its presence is full justification for Ambrose in call- 
 ing it " a fourth kind of baptism." 
 
 4. The position occupied by this "troubled" water, in 
 relation to the baptism, is that of efficient agency, and not 
 of a receiving element. 
 
 If this point be established, the theory at once vanishes 
 into thin air. In every primary physical mersion, there are 
 always present a baptizer, or a baptizing agency, a baptized 
 object, and a receiving element, within which the baptized 
 object finds its rest, and enters upon its changed condition. 
 The Baptist theory affirms that ^anzf^ui represents nothing 
 but a definite form of action, carrying its object within the 
 element, and, without resting there, bringing it out again. 
 This notion has been so utterly ground into impalpable pow- 
 der, between the millstones of facts, that we may let it go, 
 for the present, to the winds. But some theorist may say: 
 "Suppose the definite act be abandoned as an error, still 
 there remains a covering over, and here, as our final refuge, 
 we fight our last battle." To this we reply: It is necessary 
 to determine whether this "covering over" is essentially 
 transient or of indefinite continuance. If the former, then 
 we are brought back to a dippiiig under another name. If 
 
BAPTISM BY THE POOL OF BBTHESDA. 167 
 
 the latter, then all the radical results flowing from this new 
 position, must be accepted. But, whether accepted or not, 
 as we aim, not merely at the overthrow of a mistaken theory 
 of a word, but to establish truth, we proceed to show that a 
 baptism is not limited, as the amended theory w^ould affirm, 
 to the enclosure of an object within a fluid, but that a fluid, 
 present in a baptism, may be there, not as a receiving ele- 
 ment, but as an efficient agency, efiecting a baptism — change 
 of condition without any enclosure. 
 
 In support of this position, I appeal, 1. To those multi- 
 plied cases adduced in Classic Baptism, in which study, grief , 
 questions, disease, are represented as agencies in efiecting bap- 
 tisms, where physical covering is impossible, and where im- 
 aginary covering is never stated nor intimated. 2. To those 
 cases mentioned in Classic Baptism, where a fluid element 
 is employed as the agency in effecting the baptism, without 
 any covering, (1.) Hot iron, baptized by water, as agency, 
 without covering, bringing it into a cold condition (p. 325). 
 (2.) Intoxicating wine, baptized by water, as agenc}'^, not 
 covering it, but mixed through it, and bringing it into an 
 unintoxicating condition (p. 339). (3.) Water, itself, im- 
 pregnated with an intoxicating principle, and baptizing, as 
 an agency, by drinking, bringing into a changed condition, 
 resembling that of a drunken man (p. 330). (4.) Wine, as 
 an agency, baptizing men by its intoxicating quality without 
 covering, by drinking, bringing into a condition of drunken- 
 ness (pp. 316-342). 3. To the case in hand, where the water 
 is impregnated, not with an intoxicating principle, but with 
 a sanative power, the influence of which was to be developed, 
 not by drinking, but by contact. A baptism is effected; the 
 condition of the diseased man is thoroughly changed ; there 
 is no "covering over;" the result is not due to water as a 
 fluid, but as a vehicle through which divine power is com-» 
 municated, which divine power is exerted without calling 
 into exercise the covering quality of water. 
 
 If these facts do not establish the position, that water, 
 wine, or any other fluid, (possessed of a quality capable of 
 controlling condition without mersion,) is capable of baptizing 
 
168 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 as an agency, without acting as a receiving element, then 
 evidence has lost its power to control conclusions. But if 
 they do suffice to establish this position, then, the amended 
 theory, " covering over" — last refuge of its friends — perishes 
 without remedy. 
 
 5. This baptism by — not dipping m, nor covered with — 
 Bethesda water, proves that I^Taaman was baptized by the in- 
 fluence communicated through the water of Jordan, and that 
 his baptism consisted in his changed bodily condition as to 
 the leprosy, and not in his dipping — supposing that to have 
 been present in the transaction. The same is true as to the 
 baptism of the world by the deluge water. There was a bap- 
 tism here of the world in the waters ; but it is not that baptism 
 to which attention is directed, but the cleansing of the world 
 from its sin-defilements, by the agency of these world-em- 
 bracing waters. Therefore Ambrose (iii, 426) groups them 
 all together: " Ergo habes unum baptisma (quando Naaman 
 leprosus ille mundatus est), aliud in diluvio, habes tertium 
 genus, quando in mari Rubro baptizati sunt patres, habes 
 quartum genus in p>iscina, quando movebatur aqua." All 
 these are baptisms by changes of condition, through water 
 as the agency, and not as a receiving element. And they 
 are of "one," and "another," and a "third," and a "fourth" 
 genus of baptism. ^'' Malta sunt genera baptismaiumj' 
 
 6. We have the clearest proof that the ground on which 
 Ambrose rests, in calling all these cases baptisms, is the 
 change of condition, which is the central truth presented in 
 each. And it is this feature of their baptism — a thoroughly 
 changed condition — which, in Ambrose's view, qualifies a 
 purified w-orld, a purified Israel, a purified ISTaaman, a puri- 
 fied Bethesdaite, to be a "figure " of that higher, holier, per- 
 fect baptism, effected through the water impregnated with 
 the purifying and soul-regenerating influences of the Holy 
 Spirit, in which he and other Patrists so fully believed. 
 
BAPTISM BY WASHING. liO 
 
 WATEE APPLIED TO THE BODY WITH DIVEESITY OP EOKM 
 AND EXTENT. 
 
 BAPTISM BY WASHING. 
 
 Levitictts 15 : 5. 
 
 "And whosoever toucheth his bed, shall cleanse his clothes 
 and wash himself with water, and be unclean until the even." 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 Tivo(; dk evexev ^tt^ to ^dmt(T!J.a Bpyerai 6 Xptard'; dvayxaiov e^Tretv, xal 
 im Ttolov spheral ^aTzrcff/ia .... Bditnaixa yjv to 'loudalxov^ rd pvTziov 
 ffiofiarixaiv anaXXdrrov ^ ou rcbv xard to auveidbq diiaprTj/jLartjuv .... 
 Aouffsrat, yap rd awjia ahrou udari xa^apu). 
 
 " But it is necessary to say why Christ comes for baptism, and 
 for what baptism he comes. For this is as necessary to know as 
 that. And it is necessary to teach your love the latter first, 
 because from the latter you may learn the former. The baptism 
 was Judaic; that which takes away bodily defilement; not that 
 which takes away sins of conscience. For if one should commit 
 adultery, or be guilty of theft, or should transgress in any such 
 way, it would not take away his guilt; but if any one should 
 touch the bones of the dead, if any one should taste food not 
 appointed by the law, if any should be near corruption, if any 
 one was in company with lepers, he washed and was unclean 
 until evening, and then was clean. For it is said, ' He shall 
 wash his body with pure water, and shall be unclean till even- 
 ing, and then he shall be clean.' " (Lev. 15 : 5, seqq.) — Chrysostom, 
 ii, 366. 
 
 Ou8e prjv rdv d-Ko t^c xard auZoyiav xotVjjc, 6p.0Kuq a>c 7:dXai, ^an- 
 Ti^£f7{^ac xal vuv Trpoffrdaasi ij deia did Kupiou Tzpdvoia .... to noXXd 
 Mu)uaicoq di ivbz nepiXa^cbv ^aizriffiiaroq. 
 
 "Divine pi-ovidence, through the Lord, does not now, as for- 
 merly, command to be baptized from the conjugal bed . . . em- 
 bracing, by one baptism, the many baptisms of Moses." — Clemens 
 Alex., i, 1184. 
 
170 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 JUDAIC BAPTISM BAPTISM FROM THE BED. 
 
 " For what baptism he comes." This statement implies a 
 diversity of nature in baptisms. Ambrose, as we have seen, 
 expressly affirms this: '■'■ Multa sunt genera baptismatum." 
 There are many kinds of baptisms. Chrysostom tells us 
 "what kind" of baptism this was, and says, that "the kind 
 of baptism " which the Saviour received, will explain why 
 he received baptism at all. The nature of some baptisms 
 w^as such as to cause embarrassment at the thought of the 
 Saviour receiving them. Such a baptism was that by which 
 "sins of conscience" were taken away; and this was the 
 baptism claimed to be administered in Chrysostom's day. 
 But the Saviour had no such sius to take away. How then 
 could he receive this kind of baptism; and, if he did not re- 
 ceive this kind of baptism, what kind did he receive ? Such 
 difficulties and queries could not but arise under Patristic 
 teaching, and "the Golden Mouth" Bishop sets himself to 
 answer them. In doing so, he declares that the baptism 
 which Christ received was not Christian baptism, nor Jo- 
 hannic baptism, nor Classic baptism, but ^^ Judaic baptism." 
 He then expounds the distinguishing peculiarity of this kind 
 of baptism. He does not make the difference to lie in dip- 
 ping forward, or backward, or sideways, or standing, or 
 kneeling; nor yet in being " wholly covered" by a sweeping 
 torrent, or rising flood, or falling wave. Fortunatelj', or un- 
 fortuna.tely, this modern theory of diverse baptism was un- 
 known to this eloquent and learned Grecian. His explana- 
 tion turns on the different influences possessed, and the 
 different conditions, ceremonial and spiritual, induced by 
 the elements operative in Judaic and Patristic baptism. 
 The former takes away " bodily defilement,' ' the latter takes 
 away "sins of conscience." 
 
 "But we can escape this difficulty," exclaims the theorist. 
 " When Ambrose and Chrysostom say there are ' many kinds 
 of baptisms,' they do not mean what they say; they mean 
 that there is but one kind. They speak figuratively of dif- 
 ferent effects under one cause, or the diversities of a whole 
 
BAPTISM FROM THE BED. 171 
 
 are embraced in the use of one of its parts." But the text 
 does not speak of a dip'ping being in "the whole " as a part. 
 "Very true; but we escape that difficulty, too, by 'figure.' 
 Washing is the requirement, and as dipping is one paode of 
 washing, and the greater includes the lesser, a dipping must 
 be included in the washing." Certainly, the theory does cut 
 quite a figure in its exposition, especially as being received 
 on sufierance into the home of washing, like the pleading 
 wolf into the home of the lamb, it incontinently devours its 
 confiding host. 
 
 After all, we prefer believing that Chrysostom means what 
 he says, that baptisms differ, though dippings do not, and 
 that Judaic baptism changes the condition of the body by 
 removing ceremonial defilement, while Patristic baptism 
 was imagined to change the condition of the soul, by re- 
 moving "sins of conscience." The baptism of Christ was 
 (as taught) ^^ Judaic baptism." 
 
 As to the manner of using the water for this washing, 
 there is no intimation, whatever, of any particular mode. 
 It is admitted that the word (Xouu)) carries no one mode with 
 it, nor do any incidental directions or circumstances point to 
 any modal use. 
 
 It is not necessary that the object washed should be in the 
 water. This has been proved. And it is in proof, in respect 
 to this particular washing, that neither the Septuagint nor 
 Chrysostom believed that the body was required to be dip- 
 ped in, or put in the water in any way, for the language they 
 employ — Xouaexat udari — allows the body to be washed out of 
 the water as well as in the water, the requirement being to 
 wash with water. This Judaic baptism of ceremonial puri- 
 fication, no more self-evidences the quo modo of its execution 
 by dipping, pouring, or sprinkling, than does the Classic 
 baptism of intoxication give its own proof as to the mode 
 in which the wine was received — at one draught, by fre- 
 quent sipping, or by sucking through a straw. 
 
 Clement. — The extract from Clement shows that this waa 
 one, only, of the "many baptisms" of Moses. It also ex- 
 hibits two points irreconcilable with the theory. 
 
172 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 1. The greater power of Patristic over Judaic baptism, and 
 2. The phraseology, " baptized /rom the conjugal bed." 
 
 As to the first of these points, Clement is in accord with 
 other Patrists'in attributing greater power to Christian bap- 
 tism, over all other baptisms; but if baptism was understood 
 by them to mean a dipping, no "power" can be attributed 
 to one dipping over any other dipping. If baptism is ex- 
 pressive of condition, then there is titness in saying that a 
 Jewish or Christian rite had more or less power to produce 
 a given effect. 
 
 In relation to the second point, it is obvious that " dip- 
 ping from " defilement, is not such form of language as we 
 would expect, while " to purify from," harmonizes with the 
 idea. This form of expression we have met with before 
 under similar circumstances — " baptizing /rom a dead body" 
 — and we shall meet with it again. Such established usage 
 can only be satisfactorily explained by the propriety of its 
 form to express the nature of a baptism — purification from 
 defilement. 
 
 BAPTISM BY WASHING. 
 
 EzEKiEL 16 : 4, 9. 
 
 " And as for thy nativity, in the day thou wast born . . . thou 
 wast not washed in water. Then washed I thee with water." 
 
 Sepiuagini. 
 
 Kai iv udari ovx iXouGQrjq .... xai iXouad ae iv odari xai k'^pcffd as iv 
 kXaiu}. 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 " Cruenta infantium corpora, statim ut emittuntur ex utero 
 lavari solent; ita et generatio spiritualis lavaero indiget salutari. 
 . . . Multaque sunt lavacra quse Ethnici in mysteriis suis polli- 
 centur; qui omnes lavant: sed non lavant in salutem. Quod 
 quidem non solum de haereticis, sed de Bcclesiasticis inteliigi 
 potest, qui non plena fide accipiunt baptismum salutare. De- 
 quibus dicendum est, quod acciperint aquam, sed non acciperint 
 
BAPTISM BY WASHING. 173 
 
 Spiritum ; si cut et Simon ille Magus, qui pecunia volebat redimere 
 
 gratiam Dei, baptizatus quidem in aqua, sed nequaquam bap- 
 
 tizatus est in salutem." 
 
 " ( Verse 9.) ' Et lavi te aqua . . . . et unxi te oleo.' 
 
 .... " Et lavi te, inquit, aqua baptismi salutaris. . . . de quo 
 
 baptismate et Isaias loquitur, dicens : Lavabit Dominus sordes 
 
 filiorum et filiarum Sion." — Jerome, v, 127, 131. 
 
 "The bodies of iufants, stained with blood, are washed as soon 
 as born. So, also, spiritual birth needs the salutary washing. 
 The heathen practise many washings in their mysteries; who 
 wash all; but they do not wash into salvation. Which indeed 
 may be understood not only of heretics, but of those connected 
 with the church, who do not receive with full faith the salutary 
 baptism. Of whom it may be said, they receive the water, but 
 do not receive the spirit; as also, Simon, the Magician, who 
 wished to purchase the grace of God with money, was baptized, 
 indeed, with water, but by no means, baptized into salvation." 
 
 Versed. "Andl washed thee with water .... and I anointed 
 thee with oil." 
 
 "And I washed thee," he says, "with the water of salutary 
 baptism. . . . Concerning which baptism, Isaiah, also, speaks : 
 The Lord will wash the uncleanness of the sons and daughters 
 of Zion."— Jerome, v, 127, 131. 
 
 SPECIAL POINTS. 
 
 1. Infant washing. — Not one new-born babe in a million 
 is put under the water in washing. But the theory says : 
 " IJnder the water, baptism ; not under the water, no bap- 
 tism." 
 
 2. Washing is baptism. — No new-born babe was ever washed 
 by a simple dipping into or covering with water. Birtb im- 
 purity is not thus cleansed. Soul impurity is not to be 
 washed away by a mere dipping into simple water. Wash- 
 ing and baptism are, both, more than a dipping. Washing 
 is baptism because it is more than a dipping. Baptism is 
 washing because it is more than a dipping. Dipping is 
 neither a washing nor a baptism, because it is nothing but 
 a dipping. Washing is more than (and may be performed 
 without) either sprinkling, or pouring, or dipping. Dr. Fuller 
 
174 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 (p. 15), says: "A command to wash is a command to wash, 
 and nothing else." Doubtless J^aaman thought so too. 
 
 3. Salutary washing. — That washing which is more than a 
 dipping, yet no dipping, frees the new-born babe from its 
 impurities, and brings it into a salutary, healthful condi- 
 tion. That washing which the Holy Spirit effects through 
 power imparted to the water, frees the soul from its impuri- 
 ties and brings it into a salutary condition — one of spiritual 
 health and salvation — baptizes " into salvation." So Patrists 
 thought. 
 
 4. Simple water cannot baptize. — Simon Magus was baptized, 
 [dipped Jerome, probably, supposed,) yet was not baptized. 
 Just as Ambrose says: "Baptismata sunt gentium, sed non 
 sunt baptismata." It may be called a baptism because 
 avowedly a religious purification ; but it was no baptism, in 
 fact, because no purification of the soul took place, the power 
 of the Holy Spirit not being incorporated with the water. 
 He received the water; he did not receive the Spirit. JSTo 
 change of condition took place. He did not pass out of a 
 state of impurity and condemnation, into a state of purity 
 and salvation ; therefore no baptism took place. 
 
 5. This washing was with water and not in water. — It is true 
 that the Septuagint introduces the preposition with the da- 
 tive; but it is hardly necessary to say, that this is done, 
 almost times without number, with instrumentality as Avell 
 as locality. That it should be so regarded in this passage 
 is shown, 1. By the fact that the preposition is omitted in 
 Jerome's version. 2. That the preposition is used in the 
 same verse, by the Septuagint with "oz7," where inness is 
 out of the question, — "I anointed thee iDith, not in, oil." In 
 which case, also, Jerome omits the preposition. 3. In de- 
 scribing the use of oil, immediately after, he expresses the 
 mode of use, by pouring — olei infusione linivit. The use of 
 water, in the same baptism, both as instrumental means and 
 receiving element, is as impossible as to use wine at the 
 same time for baptizing one by making him drunk by drink- 
 ing, and for drowning by putting him in it. The theory 
 can find neither aid nor comfort in this washing. 
 
BAPTISM BY WASHING THE HANDS AND FEET. 175 
 
 BAPTISM BY WASHING THE HANDS AND FEET. 
 
 Exodus 40 : 30-33. 
 (Exodus 29 : 4 ; 30 : 18-20.) (Numb. 8:5; 19 : 20.) 
 
 "And he set the laver between the tent of the congregation 
 and the altar, and put water there to wash withal. 
 
 "And Moses and Aaron and his sons washed their hands and 
 their feet thereat. 
 
 "When they went into the tent of the congregation, and when 
 they came near unto the altar they washed; as the Lord com- 
 manded Moses." 
 
 Septuagint. 
 
 Uoirjffov XouTTjpa ^aXxouv — ware vinrea6ai — xdX ix^eTi^ e^c aurov udcup. 
 Kai vi(peTat "Aapibv xru oi u[u\ aurou i^ abrou rdq ^sTpac;^ xai rou? noda^ 
 '6daTt. (Ex. 30 : 18, 19.) 
 
 .... xai /.uuffscg aurohq udarc. (Ex. 40 : 12.) 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 llpmrov 6 dp^rtspebq Xousrac, e^Lza 6u/iia .... Traig ydp ivey^wpei raJv 
 dikXujv, umpeuysffSac ; rov dt" udazo'; ounu) xexaiapiffpAvov ; xai abii^okov 
 exeiro rod ^aTrrtV/jtaroc, Xouzi]p k'vdov aTzoxsliievoq t^? axyjVY^q, 
 
 " The high priest first washes, then sacrifices ; for Aaron was 
 first washed, then became high priest. For how could be be 
 permitted to pray for others who was not first cleansed by 
 water? And the laver placed within the tent was a symbol of 
 baptism." — Cyril of Jerusalem^ 433. 
 
 " Interanea sane cum pedibus aqua dilui jubet sermo prsecepti, 
 sacramentum baptismi sub figurali prsedicatione denuntians. 
 
 "Igitur sacrificium, pro quo haec omnia sacrificia in typo et 
 figura prascesserant, unum et perfectum, immolatus est Christus." 
 
 " The word of the precept, truly, with the feet, orders the 
 washing with internal water, announcing, figuratively, the sac- 
 rament of baptism. 
 
 " Therefore Christ was sacrificed, the one perfect sacrifice, for 
 which all these sacrifices in type and figure went before." — On- 
 gen, ii, 410, 442. 
 
176 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 'Apieta 8k kart ippovslv offca' xai dij xat yj ehwv too ^aTtTta/iaTot; efoy dv 
 xai Tj kx Mojufficoi; Tzapadsdop-ivTj rol<; ■Kon^Tolq wdi Tzwr;. 
 
 'H 5' o8pi\>a[j.ivr] y.aSapd ^pol I/iara i-^ouaa, 
 'H nevsXoTZT] i-\ riju iu^vjv spheral. 
 
 T7j?.i/ia^uf: 8s, 
 
 Xe'ipaq i^c(pdfj.£vo<; Tzokivjq aAo?, euysr 'ABtjvtj. 
 
 ^E6oq Touro 'Iou8aicDv, d)q xai to TzokXdxiq kn\ xotrrj ^aTzri^eaSai. 
 EZ youv xdxelvo e'cpjjrar 
 
 "Iffii pi] Xourpip, dXXd vou) xaSapo'^. 
 
 Clem. Alex., i, 1352. 
 
 " Purity is to think purely. An image of this baptism was 
 communicated to the poets, from Moses, thus — 
 ' Having washed, and being clothed with clean vestments, 
 Penelope conies to prayer.' 
 
 ' But Telemachus, 
 
 Having washed his hands of the hoary sea, prays to Minerva.' 
 
 " This is a custom of the Jews to baptize often upon the 
 couch. Therefore, it is well said, 
 
 < Be pure, not by washing, but by thinking.' " 
 
 Clemens Alex., i, 1352. 
 
 BAPTISM OP THE WHOLE BODY BY WASHING A PART. 
 
 Washing. — Dr. Carson insists that if these washings are 
 called baptisms, they must have been "immersions." At 
 the same time he says, " That the word (Aouw) does not neces- 
 sarily express mode, I readily admit. This must be deter- 
 mined by circumstances. All I contend for from this word 
 is, that the object to which it is applied is covered with the 
 water. The application of this word to baptism shows that 
 the rite was a bathing of the whole body; and as immersion 
 is the usual way of bathing, baptism must have been an 
 immersion." (p. 486.) Dr. C. here distinguishes between 
 "bathing" and "immersion," yet insists that in either case, 
 equally, the object bathed or immersed shall be "covered 
 with the water." There is such a careless and groundless 
 mixing up of important words, having essentially diverse 
 
WASHING THE HANDS BAPTIZES THE BODY. 177 
 
 meanings, bj this writer, that one cannot tell what he means. 
 Does he mean that an object not in water, but rubbed by a 
 wetted hand or cloth, is "bathed," "covered with water?" 
 He speaks of the wounded thigh of Adonis being bathed, 
 covered with water. If he was not "immersed," which is 
 not said, how else could his wounded thigh have been 
 "bathed" but by rubbing with the hand? So, unquestion- 
 ably, the stripes of Paul and Silas were washed — bathed. 
 But if this is the "covering with water" which Dr. C. con- 
 tends for, what becomes of his conclusion of immersion-dip- 
 ping when this Greek word is used ? 
 
 The fullest proof has been adduced to show that Xovco, lavo, 
 wash, bathe, do not require their objects to be in the water. 
 And as to the mode of applying the water, Carson (p. 493) 
 admits — "the water might be applied by sprinkling, or by 
 pouring, or in any way." Tertullian speaks of one as ex- 
 posed "lavacro Jovis," to "the washing of Jupiter," efi'ected 
 " imbribus et pluviis," by " showers and rains," Would this 
 meet the idea of "bathing and covering with water?" A 
 line of poetry reads, " The rose had been washed, just washed 
 in a shower;" is this washing, bathing, covering, by sprink- 
 ling? If this is his meaning, I do not know who will find 
 much fault, unless it be the friends of the theory. And with 
 this meaning, what becomes of the logic which infers these 
 washings into immersions? And why is not Calvin (Harm, 
 of Pent, ii, 210) justified, not merely by the merits of the 
 case, but by Carson himself, in saying, — " Moses, before he 
 consecrates the priests, washes them bi/ the sprinkling of 
 water?" Carson says, (p. 471,) " A purification performed 
 by pouring or sprinkling a few drops of water, would not be 
 a louiron." This statement overlooked the truth that religi- 
 ous purification does not depend for its extent on the extent 
 of the application of the purifying element. The purifica- 
 tion eflPected may embrace the entire person, although but a 
 few drops of the purifying element may fall on the body. It 
 is to this complete purification that the term Xourpov, washing, 
 is applied. 
 
 Thus Chrysostom speaks of martyrs " washed {Xouovrai) by 
 
 12 
 
178 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 their own blood." And Origen speaks of be.ng "washed 
 (loti) bj our own blood," Blood, of itself, has no "wash- 
 ing" quality; it defiles. It is not used, here, for washing 
 physically any part. Sacrificial blood cleanses the whole of 
 that to which it is applied, irrespective of the extent of its 
 application. This was martyr blood, and it washed the whole 
 man — body and soul — though applied but in sprinkled drops. 
 It is to this universal cleansing, this condition of purity, to 
 which lourpov is applied, and applied without any possibility 
 of just questioning. And Calvin is right in saying, (ii, p. 
 186,) "The washing of the hands and feet denoted that all 
 parts of the body were infected with uncleanness; for since 
 Scripture often uses the word 'hands' for the actions of life, ' 
 and compares the whole course of life 1o a way or journey, 
 it is very suitable to say, by synecdoche, that all impurity is 
 purged away by the washing of the hands and feet." 
 
 Dr. Carson's plea for immersions because of washings, 
 (baptisms,) is all in the air. 
 
 The brazen laver. — This laver, Cyril tells us, was "the sym- 
 bol of baptism." It was not the wsymbol of dipping. Aaron 
 and his sons did not wash in this vessel. Would not a com- 
 mand for several persons to wash their hands and feet in the 
 same vessel, be, at any time, incredible? Would it not be 
 pre-eminently incredible, that after oue had washed hia feet 
 in a vessel of water, another should be required to wash his 
 hands in the same vessel for a religious purification? But we 
 are not left to reject, by inference, this singular conception; 
 we are most distinctly told that the water was to be taken 
 out of the laver — ^1 duzou — uSarc — "wash with water out of it." 
 But Dr. Carson would immerse the priests in the brazen sea, 
 (p. 444,) — " Such things as they ofiered for burnt ojQfering, 
 they washed in them; but the sea loasfor the 'priests to wash in. 
 Are not these immersions? Are not these different immer- 
 sions even in the temple?" That is to say, he would make 
 the priests climb up over these " twelve oxen," and then climb 
 up five cubits higher, and plunge into twenty thousand gal- 
 lons of water to wash ! How many times a da}' this was 
 done; or, how many this water purified before it became 
 
WASHING THE HANDS BAPTIZES THE BODY. 179 
 
 irapnre, and had to be drawn off, and supplied with tif enty 
 thousand gallons of fresh water, we are not told. 
 
 The theory needs a courageous advocate, and it has one 
 in Dr. Carson. But " the sea" will not serve for immersion. 
 
 The Hebrew uses two words (neither of modal act) to ex- 
 press these laver and sea washings. The Septuagint em- 
 ploys three words — ttAuvw, nepr/.XvZu)^ vinrw — the last (applied to 
 hand and/ee^ washings) denoting the washing of the priests. 
 Thus, the highest testimony, that of Jews who had full 
 knowledge of the facts, denies an immersion in the " sea." 
 
 Baptism in Figure. — ^When Cyril speaks of the laver, at 
 which the hands and feet were washed, as " a symbol of 
 baptism;" and when Origen speaks of feet- washing as "bap- 
 tism in figure ;" and when Clement speaks of the washing 
 of hands as an "image of baptism," they all mean to declare 
 that these washings were baptisms, without any regard to 
 the modal action by which the washing was effected. There 
 is no hint as to the manner of the washing. It is said, 
 (by the use of S\a with the genitive, and by the use of oSan 
 without a preposition,) that the water was used as a means to 
 effect the baptism, and not as an element to receive an ob- 
 ject put into it. The baptism effected was one in fact, and 
 not of mere imagination. It was not the absurdity of a 
 physical baptism of a hand or a foot. How would such a 
 baptism fit the priest for his duties? It is not his hands or 
 his feet that he needs to be made pure, but his entire per- 
 son. And this is accomplished by applying water, merely, 
 to the hands and feet. This baptizes the whole person; 
 brings the whole man into a condition of ceremonial purity, 
 which is the baptism. This change of condition, from im- 
 purity into purity, is a fact, as truly as is the change of con- 
 dition in a mass of lead passing from the atmosphere into 
 the depths of the sea. This change, in the ceremonial con- 
 dition of the whole man, by the local application of water, 
 is called symbol of, figure of, image of, baptism, because it 
 is a baptism which resembles some other baptism, and is in- 
 tended so to resemble it. 
 
 As these symbols, figures, images, are connected with a 
 
180 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 great variety of modes in the use of the agency in the bap- 
 tism — water, blood, ashes, &c, — it is important to establish 
 the fact that, under all these forms, they are not merely 
 called, for some known or unknown* reason, but truly are 
 bona fide baptisms. For this purpose I call attention to the 
 use of the same terms, "type and figure," in the extract 
 from Origen, in reference to sacrifices which preceded "the 
 one and perfect sacrifice." Although these sacrifices difi:ered 
 greatly among themselves, and still more from the " perfect 
 sacrifice," still, they agreed generically among themselves, 
 and in their resemblance to " the one sacrifice," in this, 
 namely: that, in every case, there was a substitutionary 
 victim. With great variety in the victims, and in the modal 
 arrangements, they were all true sacrifices, " typifying and 
 figuring" one which was like, and infinitely unlike. These 
 baptisms, amid diversity of object and modal execution, 
 were as real baptisms as these sacrifices were real. As Ori- 
 gen says, there were many sacrifices, yet only "one sacri- 
 fice." So Ambrose says : "Multa sunt genera baptismatum 
 sed unum baptisma." Let no one suppose that the terms 
 "symbol, figure, image," detract, in any wise, from the sub- 
 stantive character of these baptisms. 
 
 Jewish Custom. — Clement had been engaged in a discussion 
 designed to enforce the great superiority of mental purity — 
 right thinking — over ceremonial purity, water-washing. This 
 leads him to speak of baptism, water-washing, as practised 
 by Jew and Gentile. He supposes that the heathen poets 
 may have received "the image of baptism" from Moses. 
 Among the baptisms enjoined by Moses, he appears to have 
 had especially in mind the washing of hands, as he quotes 
 a case of this kind as practised by Telemachus; and also 
 refers to the Jewish custom of washing hands at meals, 
 "upon the couch." And in view of this widespread water- 
 washing, and its ceremonial purity, presses, again, the great 
 superiority of a pure mind over a ceremonial washing. To 
 fasten this truth in the mind, is his single and earnest pur- 
 pose. 
 
 Inasmuch as dipp'ng into water, or covering over with 
 
WASHING THE HANDS BAPTIZES THE BODY, 181 
 
 water — one reclining upon a dining-coiich — would be both 
 untimely and embarrassing, Baptist writers have sought to 
 introduce quite another scene. Thus Dr. Carson (p. 492) 
 says: "The passage refers to the nightly pollutions, after 
 which bathing was prescribed by the law of Moses. They 
 were immersed on accout of the bed ; that is, pollutions con- 
 tracted there." (Levit. 15 : 16-48.) 
 
 This is only another of those extravagances of interpreta- 
 tion, constantly exhibited in the attempt to sustain a ground- 
 less theory, by cutting off and stretching out the facts of 
 usage. 
 
 The interpretation is extravagant, 1. Because there is not 
 a single point of contact between it and the context. There 
 is neither statement of, nor hint at', sexual intercourse, in 
 the remarks of Clement. Such conception cannot be made 
 to mingle with the train of thought, any more than oil with 
 water. It is an alien thing. 2. It is ridiculously absurd to 
 suppose that "the poets" would learn "the image of bap- 
 tism " from post-concubital washings ! 3. It is a gross im- 
 peachment of Clement, to suppose that he would place, in 
 juxtaposition, the purifications for prayer by Penelope and 
 Telemachus, with sexual uncleanness. 4. It is an extrava- 
 gance, most extravagant, to suppose that, out of the multi- 
 plied washings of the Jews, Clement would select a washing 
 of this class, to hold it up before the world as illustrative of 
 Jewish " custom." 
 
 What is the ground on which this interpretation is based? 
 
 1. The assumption that xoirri must mean a sleeping couch. 
 
 2. The assumption that reference is made to Leviticus 15 : 
 16-18, and its remarkable washing. 3. The assumption 
 that this washing was by "immersion." 4. The assumption 
 that It^^ has an unusual meaning. Not one of these assump- 
 tions has been proved, or can be proved. As to the first, it 
 is disproved by President Beecher, most conclusively: — 
 "Xenophon, in his Memorabilia, authorizes the usage (din- 
 ner-couch). Speaking of the marks of honor due from the 
 younger to the elder, he mentions ' rising up in their pres- 
 ence, honoring them with a soft couch — zotVj fiaXax^ — and 
 
182 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 giving them the precedence in speech.' This interpretation 
 is sustained by Struzius, in his Lexicon Xenophonteum, who 
 describes it as 'lectus quietis et convivii,' a couch of repose 
 and feasting: Morell, in his Lexicon Prosodaicum, gives 
 xklvri and y-oir-q as synonyms." 
 
 The comment of Hervetus, a translator of Clement, on 
 this passage, is: " The Jews washed themselves, not only at 
 sacrifices, but also at feasts, and this is the reason why Clem- 
 ent says that they were purified or washed upon a couch, 
 that is, a dining-couch or triclinium. To this Mark refers, 
 eh. vii, and Matt., ch. xv. TertuUian also refers to it when 
 he says, Judeeus Israel quotidie lavat." 
 
 The second assumption is sufiiciently refuted when con- 
 fronted with the passage. We may add, however, additional 
 disproof, taken from Clement himself He does refer to the 
 washing in Levit. 15, in i, 1184, but in very difi'erent terms: 
 
 d.Tzo T^<r y.ara. auluyiav xoirf]q — (iann'^eaiat.. N^OW, can any One, Avheu 
 
 Clement has described this baptism in such unmistakable 
 terms, claim a right to confound with it a baptism described 
 in terms so diverse, and belonging to such diverse circum- 
 stances? The diversity of these passages does not consist 
 merely, or mainly, in the presence of cu'^uyiav^ in the one case, 
 and in its absence in the other, but in the presence of aizb in 
 the first passage, and the use of ^^rt in the latter. The use 
 of oLT^b^ with the noun indicating the source of defilement, 
 from which cleansing has been eft'ected, is established usage; 
 thus, we have "baptized from {a-d) a dead body," "from 
 (ccTTo) the market," "from (aro) an evil conscience." The use 
 of ir^l, under such circumstances, is unheard of. If, then, 
 au%uyla.\> might be omitted, (imo would, in its absence, be most 
 imperatively required to be retained, in a reference to the 
 baptism contemplated. Its absence, alone, is disproof of 
 the assumed reference. 
 
 The third assumption has been met with so frequently, 
 heretofore, and is in such constant demand as a stafi" on 
 which the theory may lean, that no, present, formal dis- 
 proof is needed. 
 
 The fourth assumption is dismissed by the truth, that no 
 
WASHING THE HANDS BAPTIZES THE BODY. 183 
 
 unusual meaning can take the place of a usual meaning, 
 when that meaning fully meets the exigencies of the case. 
 The usual meaning meets all the demands of the present 
 passage, most perfectly. It is in proof, that the washing of 
 hands constituted a baptism of the entire person. It is in 
 proof, that the washing of hands did take place, for the pu- 
 rification of the person, at meals. It is, therefore, in proof, 
 that baptisms might take place, as Clement affirms, " upon 
 the couch." And, this being in proof, the theory is again 
 disproved, for hand-<:/^)^/)^7?^, as a door of retreat, is both 
 locked and bolted. The hands were no more defiled than 
 any other part of the body, and if the purifying influence of 
 the water extended no farther than its physical application, 
 then the man, hands excepted, remained in all his impurity. 
 But the man was purified, and consequently the purifying 
 influence of the water extended beyond its application. 
 Wine, drank,, does not baptize — make drunk — raerelj' the 
 mouth, and throat, and stomach, which the liquid touches, 
 but the whole man, from head to foot. So, purifying water 
 does not merely baptize — make pure — the hands and the 
 feet, with which it comes into contact, but the entire person, 
 reached through these members of the body. When we 
 meet with a heathen or a Jew, who believes that that part 
 only of the body is baptized to which the water or the ashes 
 is applied, we will listen to a hand-baptism as being some- 
 thing else than a baptism of the entire person. Hand-wash- 
 ing, " upon the couch," however efi'ected, was no dipping of 
 the person into water, but it was a baptism of the entire man. 
 There is strong reason to believe that Clement, instead of 
 referring to Leviticus 15, had his eye on Mark 7 : 2, 3. In 
 addition to general considerations, very strong special evi- 
 dence for this may be found in the use oi ruiXXdxiq, It is well 
 known that the use of ttm^/^^, in Mark, has been a cause of 
 embarrassment to translators. The Vulgate, Luther, and 
 the English Bible, translate '■'■frequently,''' "many times," 
 " often," and it is quite probable that Clement obtained his 
 "frequently" from the same source. Certainly the word 
 has thus a reason for its use, while, on the Baptist hypothe- 
 
184 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 818, it must be confessed that it is a very remarkable ad- 
 dendum. 
 
 Alex. D. Le I^ourrj (Dissert, ii, in Clementem) makes 
 the following" remark on the passage under consideration: 
 "JSTostri porro sacri baptismatis imaginem non solum apud 
 Judseos, sed etiam Gentiles fuisse Clemens noster ostendit. 
 Et apud Gentiles quidem in eo, quod de Penelope et Tele- 
 macho cecinit Homerus Odyss. A' et ^'. Apud Judaeos 
 autem, quia mos eorum erat, ut ssepe in lecto tingerentar. Sed 
 scite Clemens monet hsec plane imperfecta fuisse baptismata 
 qnandoquidem non lavacro, sed animo mundi purique esse 
 debemus." 
 
 On this passage we may ask: 1. Can the irrationality of 
 theory go beyond the making washing post concubitum., the 
 image ^'■nosiri sacri baptismatis T' 2. When the theory insists 
 that tingo, used with baptism, proves a dipping, how does it 
 manage to effect a dipping " in lecto?" 
 
 Clement, a native of Athens, knew somewhat of Greek, 
 but clearly he knew nothing of the dipping theory. 
 
 BAPTISM BY SPEINKLING. 
 Leviticus 14 : 4-7. 
 
 "Then shall the priest command to take for him that is to be 
 cleansed, two birds alive and clean, and cedar wood, and scarlet, 
 and hyssop: 
 
 "And the priest shall command that one of the birds be killed 
 in an earthen vessel over running water. 
 
 "As for the living bird, he shall take it, and the cedar wood, 
 and the scarlet, and the hyssop, and shall dip them and the living 
 bird in the blood of the bird that was killed over the running 
 water : 
 
 "And he shall sprinkle upon him that is to be cleansed from 
 the leprosy seven times, and shall pronounce him clean, and 
 shall let the living bird loose in the field." 
 
 Sepiuagint. 
 
 Kai Tzeoio^avet Itu. rbv xaSapiadivra and rr^q Xinpaq inrdxtq xai xa6apdq 
 iarai. - 
 
BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING. 185 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 . . . . " Bt intingens passerem vivum in aquas, in quibus san- 
 guinem immolati passeris decurrere fecerat, cum ligno cedrino, 
 lana coccinea, et iiyssopo aspergeret septies leprosum, et tunc 
 rite mundaretur. . . . Per lignum vero eedrinum Pater, per 
 hyssopum Filius ; per lanam autem coccineam, quse fulgorem 
 ignis habet, Spiritus sanctus designatur. lis tribus, qui rite 
 mundari volebat, aspergebatur; quia nuilus per aquam baptis- 
 matis a lepra peccatorum mundari potest, nisi sub invocatione 
 Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. . . . JSTosque a peccatis nostris, 
 qui per leprosum desiguamur, per eorum invocationem, et per 
 aquam baptismatis abluit." 
 
 " The Loi'd also commanded Moses that if any leprous person 
 would be cleansed, he should come to the priest and offer two 
 sparrows to the priest. Of which he killing one should make 
 its blood flow into living water, and dipping the living sparrow 
 into the water in which he had made the blood of the slain 
 sparrow to flow, with cedar wood, scarlet wool and hyssop, he 
 should sprinkle seven times the leprous person, and then he 
 would be properly cleansed. . . . 
 
 "But by the cedar wood the Father, by the hyssop the Son, 
 but by the scarlet wool, which has the brightness of fire, the 
 Holy Spirit is designated. Whoever wished to be cleansed in 
 proper form was sprinkled by these three; because no one can 
 be cleansed from the leprosy of sin by the water of baptism, ex- 
 cept under the invocation of the Father, and of the Son, and of 
 the Holy Ghost. . . . And he cleanses us, who are designated 
 by the leper, by their invocation and by the water of baptism." 
 — Ambrose, iv, 829. 
 
 BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING. 
 
 Ambrose, here, draws out in minute detail the points of 
 resemblance between the figure baptism and the figured 
 baptism. 
 
 The resemblances are 1. The leper and the sinner. 2. 
 Leprosy and sin. 3. The mingled water and blood, and the 
 water of baptism. 4. The cedar wood, the hyssop, and the 
 scarlet wool, designating the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost. 
 
186 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 5. The removal of the leprosy and the purification of the 
 soul from sin. 
 
 Where these elements were present, the cleansing, the 
 baptism, was' duly performed. But the theory cries out, 
 "Stop, where is the dipping?" Alas, here as everywhere 
 else, it is lacking. The fact is that all through the Patristic 
 interpretations of Jewish baptisms, it is written in characters 
 so plain, that "a wayfaring man, though a fool, need not err 
 therein," that a dipping or a covering with water never 
 enters into their thoughts as a requisite for baptism. 
 
 And this, not because they did not know that ^anriZw had 
 power to effect a physical intusposition unlimited by form 
 of act, or time of duration, thus essentially changing the 
 condition of its object; but because they knew this well, and 
 because they knew more, namely, that this word was able 
 to throw aside this limited application to a condition of 
 physical investment, and to advance into a broader and nobler 
 field, indicative of thorough change of condition under any 
 competent influence. This places the Patrists in full accord 
 with the Classics, and expounds with the most entire facility, 
 all their language. These Jewish baptisms have nothing to 
 do with physical investments. They belong to baptisms 
 whose change of condition is due to influences which do not 
 invest externally, but pervade internally. Hence this bap- 
 tism was by sprinkling, and it operated as an agency con- 
 trolling the condition of the sprinkled object; as Ambrose 
 says, "by {-per) the water of baptism." Ambrose believed 
 in baptism by sprinkling, though not in dipping by sprinkling. 
 
 BAPTISM BY WASHING AND SPEINKLING. 
 
 Psalm 51 : 2, 7. 
 
 " Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from 
 my sin. 
 
 " Purge me with hyssop, and I shall be clean : wash me, and 
 I shall be whiter than snow." 
 
BAPTISM BY WASHING AND SPRINKLING. 187 
 
 Septuagint. 
 
 ^EniTzXelov TzXuvov pe And t^? &vo[iiaq fiou, xal drrd tjJc d/jLaprlaf^ [loo 
 xaSdptffov fie. 
 
 ''PavTLei'^ fj-s uffffWTtu) xai xaSapcffSijaofiac, Tt}.uv£2<; fie xal uizkp ^:6va Xeuxdv 
 dyjaofiat. (Ps. 50 : 4, 9.) 
 
 Inierpreiation. 
 
 "Renovamur enim per lavacri regenerationem ; renovamur 
 per Spiritus sancti effusionem ; renovamur etiam per resurrec- 
 tionem. . . . Qaomodo renovemur, audi : Asperges me hyssopo, 
 et mundabor. (Ps. 50:9.) . . . Recte renovatur qui de tenebria 
 peccatorum in lucem virtutum mutatur et gratiam. — Ambrose^ i, 
 827. 
 
 " Non tam ssepius quam plenius lavari petit, ut conceptam 
 sordem possit eluere. Noverat secundum legem pleraque mun- 
 dandi esse subsidia, sed nullum plenum et perfectum. Ad illud 
 ergo perfectum tota intentione festinat, quo justitia omnia ira- 
 pletur, quod est baptismatis sacramentum, sicut ipse docet Dom- 
 inus Jesus (Matt. 3 : 15). i, 867. 
 
 "Qui enim baptizatur, et secundum Legem et secundum Evan- 
 gelium videtur esse mundatus; secundum legem, quia hyssop! 
 fasciculo Moyses aspergebat sanguinem agni : secundum Evan- 
 gelium, quia Christi erant Candida vestimenta sicut nix, cum 
 resurrectionis suae gloriam in Evangelio demonstraret. Super 
 nivem ergo dealbitur cui culpa dimittitur. (iii, 399.) 
 
 " Per hyssopi fasciculum aspergebatur agni sanguine qui mun- 
 dari volebat typico baptismate." — Ambrose, i, 875. 
 
 — 8id Touc fiiXXovraq vaawniu /Savrt^effSac, xai xaSapi^eaSat baadiTZoi tut 
 voTjTOJ rfj duvdfiei rou xard to TtdSoq uaadiTtu) xai xaXdiiu)%:oTta6ivroq. — Cyfil, 
 425. 
 
 BaTZTiffSSifxev oZv, cva vcxTJaajfiev p.eTd<T^iofiev xaSapaicDV odarwv, baawizou 
 ^unvcxmripiuv, acfiarot; vofiixou xaSapiuripwv, anoSou dafLdXsu)(; tepcozepajv 
 ^avTiZouay](: root; xexocvcDfiivou<;, xai Ttpoffxacpov b/^oufffjq adifiaxoq xdGapatv, 
 ob Tzavrelr/ r^c dfiaprtaq dvaipecnv. — Gregory Nazianzen, 372. 
 
 "We are renewed by the regeneration of washing; we are 
 renewed by the effusion of the Holy Spirit; we are renewed, 
 also, by the resurrection. How we must be renewed, hear: 
 < Thou shalt sprinkle me with hyssop, and I shall be clean.' 
 
188 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 He is rightly renewed who is changed from the darkness of sin 
 into the light of virtue and grace." — Ambrose, i, 827. 
 
 " He does not desire so much to be washed frequently as thor- 
 oughly, that contracted defilement may be washed away. He 
 knew that, according to the law, there were many means of 
 cleansing, but none full and perfect. To that perfect one, there- 
 fore, he hastens with full purpose, by which all righteousness 
 may be fulfilled, which is the sacrament of baptism, as the Lord 
 Jesus himself testifies (Matt. 3 : 15)." i, .867. 
 
 " He who wished to be cleansed by typical baptism, was 
 sprinkled with the blood of the lamb by a bunch of hyssop." 
 i, 875. 
 
 " He who is baptized, whether in conformity with the Law 
 or in conformity with the Gospel, is cleansed ; in conformity 
 with the Law, because Moses sprinkled the blood of the lamb- 
 with a bunch of hyssop." .... iii, 399. 
 
 "Rejoice, O heavens, and be glad, O earth, because of those 
 who are about to.be sprinkled with hyssop, and to be purified 
 by the spiritual hyssop^ through the power of him who drank, 
 in his suffering, from the hyssop and the reed." — Cyril, 425. 
 
 " Therefore let us be baptized, that we may overcome ; let us 
 partake of the purifying waters, more purging than hyssop, 
 more purifying than the blood of the Law, more sanctifying 
 than the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, and having, 
 for the time, power for the purification of the body, but not for 
 the complete removal of sin." — Gregory Nazianzen, 372. 
 
 Sprinkling Water, Blood, or Ashes, Effects a Baptism. 
 
 POINTS. 
 
 1. Washing, sprinkling ; a means toward Baptism.. — Ambrose 
 teaches, in the first extract, that we are renewed by the re- 
 generative power of washing; that the mode of the washing 
 effecting this renewal, is by " sprinkling with hyssop;" and, 
 farther, that what is meant by " renewal " is a change of 
 condition, passing out of a state of moral darkness into a 
 state of moral light. This new condition, effected by sprink- 
 ling-washing, is baptism. 
 
 Is this the doctrine (not theological but philological) of 
 the theory ? Is it not the identical philological conclusion 
 
BAPTISM BY WASHING AND SPKINKLING. 189 
 
 to which we were brought by the Classics, viz., a thorough 
 change of condition, eftected by an influence, is a baptism? 
 
 2. Bajpiism under the Law not of fall -power. — Ambrose had 
 before told us that there were "many baptisms;" he now 
 tells us that "not one of these was perfect." He does not 
 mean to deny that any or all were perfect baptisms, con- 
 sidered in themselves, but that they were relatively imper- 
 fect; the power effecting the baptism, — the changed con- 
 dition, was not adequate to meet all the necessities of men. 
 In like manner John's baptism was "imperfect," and for 
 the same reason. The theorists will not deny that John's 
 baptism was perfect as a baptism considered in itself; nor 
 can they deny that the Patrists regarded John's baptism as 
 "imperfect" as respects its power to change the condition 
 of those receiving it. The "imperfection" of legal baptisms 
 by sprinkling, considered as carrying with them "the fulfil- 
 ment of all righteousness," does not affect their being true 
 and perfect baptisms in themselves. This idea of perfectness 
 of power in a baptism, is proof that form of act had nothing 
 to do with it; fulness of result was the issue in contempla- 
 tion. 
 
 3. JLegal sprinklings Baptize. — In the third extract he de- 
 clares, as plainly as it can be expressed in language, that 
 baptism under the Law and baptism under the Gospel, are 
 on a perfect equality as baptisms ; that they are, also, on an 
 equality as to the effecting a change of condition from im- 
 purity to purity; but as to the measure of that change they 
 differed. He, also, tells us, in terms so explicit as to admit 
 of no addition, that the mode of baptism " according to the 
 Law" was by sprinkling, — '■'■ Moses sprinkled the blood of the 
 Lamb upon him who was baptized according to the laio." 
 
 4. Tj/pe Baptism. — In the last extract this truth is reaf- 
 firmed with a vividness and force which writes as with a 
 pen of iron in the rock forever, that sprinkling the blood of the 
 Lamb baptizes,— hnugs the impure out of their condition of 
 impurity into a condition of purity. And this baptism is a 
 " type " of that one, full, and perfect baptism by the Lamb 
 of God, according to the Gospel. 
 
190 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Against this identification of sprinkling and baptism Dr. 
 Carson lifts up a cry of indignation and rebuke. And well 
 he may; for if Ambrose is right Carson is wrong, all wrong, 
 and the theory, — " dip and nothing but dip through all Greek 
 literature," as also its amendment, "at least a complete cov- 
 ering," — perishes without hope. 
 
 On this point Carson thus speaks (p. 369) : " To what pur- 
 pose is it to refer us to the sprinkling of Aaron and his sons 
 with blood, with other sprinklings ? These were divers puri- 
 Jications, but they were not divers baptisms. Yet, after enu- 
 merating these sprinklings, he gravely tells us: 'jSTow these 
 are the divers baptisms of which the apostle speaks.' Who 
 told him this? The passage does not sa}^ so; we have not 
 even the authority of a dream. Nothing but assumption, 
 assumption, assumption. Why does he not identify these 
 sprinklings with the baptisms? This has never been effect- 
 ed; this«cannot be efi^ected, . . . There is here nothing that 
 looks like an identification of the sprinklings under the law, 
 with the baptisms under the law." Then let us ivy again: 
 " ' Qui enim baptizatur, . . secundum Legem . . Moyses asper- 
 gebat,' — For he who is baptized according to the law, Moses 
 sprinkled.''^ Does this look more like identification? "As- 
 pergebatur agni sanguine qui mundari volebat typico baptis- 
 mate, — He was sprinkled with the blood of the lamb who 
 wished to be cleansed with typical baptism.'' Is this any more 
 satisfactory ? We hand over the charge of triple assumption 
 to its proper ownership, the theor3^ Sunshine does not more 
 surely reveal shadow as attendant upon substance, than does 
 history show assumption to wait on the theory. I^ow, 
 that Ambrose calls the sprinkling of the blood of the lamb 
 a baptism, human wit can neither evade nor deny; but 
 troubled theorists may seek to escape on the ground that it 
 is only a typical baptism. 
 
 To this we answer : 1. These sprinklings are called bap- 
 tisms scores of times, without any limiting adjunct. 2. They 
 are here called baptisms, regarded in their own nature, and 
 typical baptisms, because they have such a nature as to re- 
 semble some other baptism to which reference is made. 
 
BAPTISM BY WASHING AND SPRINKLING. 191 
 
 3. Whatever may have been the conception of Ambrose as 
 to the antitype baptism, he must have seen that conception 
 shadowed forth in the type baptism. 4. If Ambrose believed 
 that a dipping or a covering was the alpha and the omega 
 of a baptism, as the theorists believe, and as they affirm that 
 Ambrose believed, then a dipping or a covering must have 
 been seen by this Patrist in whatever he called a " typical 
 baptism." That this is true, and is felt to be an absolute ne- 
 cessity under the theory, by its friends, a glance at facts will 
 abundantly prove. 1. In the battle of the Frogs and the 
 Mice, GTale, who had assumed the identity of ^d-KT(o and 
 ^anriZco^ (the one in a short coat, the other in a long coat,) 
 and had remorselessly shut up both to a dipping, felt bound 
 by his theory to effect, against the outcry of common sense, 
 the dipping of a lake into the blood of a frog. Carson hav- 
 ing 'assumed that PaTtriZo means "dip, and nothing but dip," 
 feels bound, against staring fact, to transmute the flowing 
 of the tide into a clipping of the coast into the sea. Dr. Ful- 
 ler, having assumed that it means at least "a complete 
 covering," felt compelled, even w^hile gazing upon the pour- 
 ing water and the uncovered altar, to declare, though it is not 
 covered, yet it means that it is covered. The whole com- 
 pany of theorists feel bound to uncover the shame of their 
 assumption, by declaring that the Apostles were dipped in — 
 or at least covered by — the wind, at Pentecost. This class 
 of facts shows how dire is the necessity, under the theory, 
 to find a dipping or a covering wherever the word baptism 
 is used. 2. Another class of facts reveals the same truth. 
 Whenever the Classics show us a baptized drunken man, or 
 a baptized sick man, or a baptized studious man, or a bap- 
 tized business man, or a baptized bewildered man, or a 
 baptized sleeping man, the theorist feels bound, and does, 
 pitilessly, put them all under the water. 3. The same de- 
 velopment is exhibited under another class of facts. IlToah 
 is regarded as having received a typical baptism. And the 
 theorists feel themselves bound to show " a dipping, or at 
 least a complete covering." Consequently we have learned 
 men exposing the nakedness of their wisdom to the pity or 
 
192 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 the derision, as the case may be, of every passer by, Ity 
 talking about !N^oah buried in the waters, and emerging 
 from his grave on Ararat. Again; it is believed that Israel 
 received a typical baptism at the Red Sea. And, at once, 
 with all alacrity, as an obligation which admits of neither 
 controversy nor escape, they set about the discovery of " a 
 dipping, or at least a complete covering." With what suc- 
 cess this effort is made, we will soon consider in detail. It 
 is sufficient now to point out the fact that a typical baptism 
 is recognized as embodying the sine qua non feature of the 
 theory. 4. Once more. What is that baptism which is now 
 practised by the theorists, according to their claim, but a 
 typical baptism, throwing backward its resemblance shadow, 
 as the Flood and the Red Sea threw theirs forward? If 
 anything can be settled under the theory, it is, that every 
 baptism must have within itself "a dipping, or at least a 
 complete covering;" and especially is this true of every 
 typical baptism. Now, Ambrose furnishes us with a " typi- 
 cal baptism," and tells us most explicitly how it was effected, 
 namely, by "the sprinkling of the blood of the lamb." Will 
 some friends of the theory do us the favor to hunt up " a dip- 
 ping, or at least a complete covering," in this baptism ? If 
 it is there, it can be pointed out, and then we will give up 
 our argument. If it is not there, then either Ambrose did 
 not know what constituted a baptism, or the friends of the 
 theory do not. But they admit that Ambrose did well know 
 all that entered into the nature of a baptism, therefore the 
 
 theory, &c. . But, apart from this short-hand reasoning, 
 
 let us look back from the standpoint to which we are brought, 
 along the line of the theory, to note the make-up of the dip- 
 pings and coverings for their baptisms. And, in doing so, 
 w^e are struck with the fact, that the dipping, got out of the 
 frog's blood, by Gale, is laughed at by Carson; while the 
 dipping which Carson gets out of the rising tide, by the 
 invocation of caiachresis, Fuller, considerately, rejects with 
 the unuttered remark, "the less said about such a dipping 
 the better;" Fuller, himself, warned by the Scylla which 
 had ruined one of his friends, and alarmed by the Charybdis 
 
BAPTISM BY WASHING AND SPRINKLING. 193 
 
 which had destroyed another, ahaiidons the dipping, and 
 patronizes "at least a complete covering;" and, after quite 
 reluctantly ascending Carmel to witness the baptism there, 
 declares, as he looks upon the poured-out water, that "if 
 the altar is not covered, it ought to be, for the sake of a very 
 dear theory, and, in fact, is, by a most appropriate flood of 
 rhetoric." I need but glance at the violence done to sound 
 reason by the endless dippings of individuals, and of com- 
 munities, of cities and nations, as shown in the misinterpre- 
 tations of Classic baptisms. IsTor need I dwell upon the feats 
 of imagination, by which JSToah is dipped into the flood, Israel 
 into the Red Sea, and the Apostles into the wind. The the- 
 orist who can accept and intellectually digest trifles like these, 
 may smile at the tenpenny nails and flint stones which enter 
 into the commissariat of the Bird of the Desert. 
 
 We choose to cast in our lot with Ambrose as the faithful 
 expositor of Classic baptism, which repudiates the presence 
 of a dipping or a covering in baptisms of influence, while 
 declaring, that the changed condition eflfected by the sprink- 
 ling of the sacrificial lamb is a baptism typical of another 
 condition, more full and more perfect. 
 
 CYRIL. 
 
 In addressing candidates for baptism, Cyril calls upon the 
 heavens to rejoice, and the earth to be glad, " because of 
 those who are about to be sprinkled with hyssop, and to be 
 purified with the spiritual hyssop, by the power of Him who 
 drank from the hyssop and the reed." He, thus, brings to- 
 gether the type baptism and the antitype baptism. I do not 
 adduce this fact to prove that Cyril baptized by sprinkling 
 (undoubtedly he oftentimes did so), but to show, 1. That it 
 never entered into his mind to question that baptism might 
 be efiected by sprinkling with hyssop. 2. That he had no 
 hesitation, however he may, usually, have administered the 
 rite of baptism, to speak of it by the same terms which de- 
 scribed the typical baptism; but inasmuch as the typical 
 baptism by hyssop was never administered otherwise than 
 
 13 
 
194 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 by " sprinkling," while the Patristic baptism was usually ad- 
 ministered in a different form, it follows, inevitably, that 
 Cyril did not regard the mode of administering baptism as 
 involved in the type or in the nature of a baptism. In other 
 words, Cyril believed that baptism was a change of condition, 
 efi'ected b}^ any competent influence, and that it never in- 
 volved the question as to mode of accomplishment; conse- 
 quently he does not hesitate to bring baptism, by sprinkling, 
 face to face with baptism administered in any other mode, 
 and even to call it by the modal word (" sprinkle ") by which 
 the type baptism was accomplished. 3. That Cyril believed 
 that both the blood used by Moses in sprinkling, and the 
 water used by himself after another fashion, were used as 
 means, having a power of influence to effect baptisms inde- 
 pendently of their character as fluids. Thus he says (429): 
 " Do not regard this washing (tw Xourpw) as by simple water, 
 but by the spiritual grace given with the water . . . — by 
 invocation it acquires the power of holiness — (Suvaixtv dyiorrjToq 
 iTrtxraraiy" This truth. Overlooked by its friends, takes the 
 ground from underneath the feet of the theory, and it sinks 
 out of sight. Cyril adds : "As man is twofold, purification 
 is twofold; that which is spiritual by the spiritual, that which 
 is physical by the physical; water purifies the body, the Spirit 
 seals the soul; sprinkled, as to the heart, by the Spirit, and 
 washed, as to the body, by pure water, we come to God." 
 Sprinkling and washing are instrumental means to effect a 
 change of condition. 
 
 GREGORY NAZIANZEN. 
 
 The testimony of Gregory 'N., as to the two points: 1. 
 That the sprinklings under the law were baptisms. 2, That 
 the water used in Patristic baptism had a baptizing power 
 communicated to it, and on that account, and on that ac- 
 count only, was capable of baptizing, is the same as the tes- 
 timony of Cyril and Ambrose. 1. On the first point we have 
 not the direct use of the word baptism, but it would be the 
 veriest despair wh'ch would rest an argument on the absence 
 
BAPTISM BY POURING AND SPL INKLING. 195 
 
 of a word in the presence of the thing. 2. Catechumens are 
 invited to come to baptism, and to partake of the purifj'ing 
 power of the water, which is extolled as transcending that 
 belonging to all the other agencies employed under the law. 
 for effecting baptism. There was power in hyssoj) to bap- 
 tize (change the condition); there was power in sacrificial 
 blood to baptize (change the condition); there was power in 
 the ashes of the heifer, sprinkling the unclean, to baptize 
 (change the condition); but there is "a power of baptism" 
 in Patristical water, which far excels all these, according to 
 Gregory. These baptisms of sacrificial blood and heifer 
 ashes could not perfectly take away sin, but Patristic bap- 
 tism could take away every sin; therefore these imperfect 
 baptisms were only types of that perfect baptism which 
 thoroughly changes the moral condition of body and soul. 
 
 This view of baptism (efiected by any influence competent 
 to make a thorough change of condition, irrespective of form 
 of operation) is identical with the view presented by the Clas- 
 sics; it has nothing in common with the theory. 
 
 BAPTISM BY POUEING AND SPKINKLIFG. 
 EzEKiEL 36 : 25, 26. 
 
 " Then will I sprinkle clean water upon you and ye shall be 
 clean; from all your filthiness and from all your idols will I 
 cleanse you. 
 
 "A new heart, also, will I give you, and a new spirit will I 
 put within you." 
 
 Septuagint. 
 
 Kai pavw i(p^ 6[ia^ xaSapov udwp^ xai xaiaptffSyjffeffSe and -Kaffcbv rwv 
 a-/.a6apatS}v (3/jtaiv, xai ano ndvzwv rBv eidtoXwv 6/j.aiVy xai xa6apu> vjiaq^ xai 
 S(ba(D up.Tv xapdlav xacvijv, xai Ttveu/ia xaivov dwau) iv u/xlv. 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 ^'Eteffundam (siveaspergam) super vosaquammundam . . . . 
 ita ut super credeutes, et ab errore conversos, effunderem aquam 
 mundam baptisjii salutaris, etmundarem eos ab abominationibus 
 
196 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Buis .... et darem eia cor Bovum ut crederent in P ilium Dei, et 
 spiritum novum, de quibus David loquitur: Cor mundum crea in 
 me, Deus, et spiritum rectum innova in viseribus meis (Ps. 50 : 21). 
 Et considerandlim, quod cor novum, et spiritus novus detur per 
 effusionem et aspersionem aquse." 
 
 '' And I will pour out (or sprinkle) upon you clean water .... 
 so that upon the believing and those converted, I will pour out 
 the clean water of saving baptism, and I will cleanse them from 
 their abominations and from all their errors, with which they 
 have been possessed, and I will give to them a new heart, that 
 they may believe upon the Son of God, and a new spirit, of which 
 David speaks : Create in me a clean heart and renew a right 
 spirit within me (Ps. 50 : 21). And it is to be observed, that a 
 new heart and a new spirit may be given by the pouring and- 
 sprinkling of water." — Jerome^ v, 341, 342. 
 
 " Adspersio autem secundum legem emundatio peceatorum 
 erat, per fidem populum sanguinis adspersione purificans (Ps. 
 50:9); sacramentum futurje ex Domini sanguine adspersionis, 
 fide interim legis sanguine holocaTistomatum repensante." — HO- 
 ary, i, 238. 
 
 " But sprinkling according to the law was the cleansing of sin, 
 through faith purifying the people by the sprinkling of blood 
 (Ps. 50 : 9); a sacrament of the future sprinkling by the blood 
 of the Lord, faith, meanwhile, supplementing the blood of the 
 legal sacrifice." — Hilary, i, 238. 
 
 Kai yj eixwv abrrj zoo (3anTi<T/j.aToi; tfdmZsv re itavrors Tzavraq Tob<; xar' 
 ixeivov Tov xacpdv ' IffpajjXtraq xal iacD^sv — wq UaoXoq eypaiptv (1 Cor. 
 10:1, 2): KaX &»? TzpofprjTeuouatv, ^le^exirj?. — (36:25) ' Pavu) if bp-aq 
 udcup xa6apbv. . . . Aau'id di ' Pavrie'tq pe uffffiunu). 
 
 "And the very image of baptism both continually illuminated 
 and saved all Israel at that time — as Paul wrote (1 Cor. 10 : 1, 
 2) : and as prophesied Ezekiel, 36 : 25, ' I will sprinkle clean water 
 upon you, and you shall be clean from all your sins;' and David 
 (Ps. 50 : 9) : 'Sprinkle me with hyssop and I shall be clean.'" — 
 Didymus Alex., 713. 
 
 BXiTZECq TOO ftanrtffparoq rijv duvapv/ ddpffet, ' hpouffaXijp, — 
 
 ^PavTieT if vpaq udcup xaSapdv. 
 
 "Thou seest the power of baptism. — Be of good courage, O 
 
BAPTISM BY POURING AND SPRINKLING. 197 
 
 Jerusalem, the Lord will take away all thy iniqu ties. The 
 Lord will wash away the uneleanness of his sons and daughtei's 
 by the spirit of judgment and the spirit of burning. He will 
 sprinkle upon you clean water and ye shall be purified from all 
 your sin." — Cyril of Jerusalem, 418. 
 
 "Ut inde exeamus loti sanguine nostro. Baptisma enim san- 
 guinis solum est quod nos puriores reddat, quam aquae baptismus 
 reddidit. . . . Mihi si concederet Deus ut proprio sanguine di- 
 luerer, ut baptismum secundum morte pro Christo suscepta per- 
 ciperem. . . . Post istud bai^tisma." 
 
 " That we may leave this world washed by our own blood. For 
 it is only the baptism of blood which can make us more pure 
 than the baptism of water made us. . . . If God would grant to 
 me that I might be cleansed by my own blood, that I might 
 attain that second baptism, dying for Christ, I would depart out 
 of this world secure. . . . After this baptism." — Origen, ii, 980. 
 
 "Neque enim spiritus sine aqua operari potest, neque aqua sine 
 spiritu. — For neither can the Spirit operate without water, nor 
 water without Spirit." — Cyprian, 1057. 
 
 JeI di xaSapa^saSai xai dyccO^EffSat to udwp irpwrov too lipewc;, ha 8uv7]6^ 
 T(p idea) /SttTTTtV/jtar: t«? d/iaprca<; rou jSaTzri^ofiivuu dvSput-ou drcofffiul^ai 
 Aid re "" hZ^/.iiiX. — 36 : 25. 
 
 "But it is necessary that the water be first purified and sancti- 
 fied by the priest, that it m.ay be able by its own baptism to 
 wipe off the sins of the baptized man. And through Ezekiel, 
 the prophet, the Lord says: 'And I will sprinkle you with pure 
 ^N^,iQv:"— Cyprian, 1082. 
 
 "Ezek. 36:25; Numb. 19:13; 8:7; 19:9.— TJnde apparet 
 aspersionem quoque aquse instar salutaris lavacri obtinere." 
 
 "Whence it appears that the sprinkling of water, also, like 
 the saving washing, obtains divine grace." — Cyprian, 1148. 
 
 Kai ToT^ ddxpuffi fianrd^o/ievot; ix deuripou. — "Baptized a second 
 time by tears." — Clemens Alex., ii, 649. 
 
 JEROME. 
 
 The " clean water of saving baptism," Jerome declares is 
 communicated by "pouring or sprinkling." The effect of 
 pouring or sprinkling this clean water is a baptism exhibited 
 
198 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 in "a new heart and a new spirit." This is, indeed, a thor- 
 oughly changed condition without dipping or covering, 
 
 Jerome thinks that this baptism (changed condition), 
 through the power of "clean water" sprinkled or poured, is 
 80 remarkable that he attaches to it a nota bene: "A new 
 heart and a new spirit may be given by the j)Ouring or 
 sprinkling of water." ' 
 
 This eminent scholar, then, is to be added to the list of 
 those who believed that baptism was a changed condition 
 induced by a powerful influence imparted to the water, and 
 through it to those who received it in the ritual ordinance. 
 Jerome never thought of such a thing as a Judaic or a Pa- 
 tristic baptism being a dipping or a covering, any more than 
 Classic writers thought of a baptism by wine-drinking being 
 a dipping or a covering. 
 
 HILARY. 
 
 The 2?ower of blood sprinkling, under the law, to change 
 the condition of the soul, when assisted by faith, Hilary, also, 
 teaches. He declares this blood sprinkling to have been a 
 tj'pical sacrament. The only one which it could represent 
 was that of baptism. According to his view, the sin-remit- 
 ting power of the blood of Christ was exerted through the 
 Sacrament of Baptism. And the mode of application is 
 represented as by " sprinkling." Let no one imagine that I 
 represent the (common) mode of baptism by Patrists to have 
 been by sprinkling. I do no such thing. I do what is more to 
 my purpose. I show that their view of baptism was such, 
 that in the very act of administering it in a manner the 
 farthest possible removed from sprinkling, they still felt that 
 there was no possible reason why they might not speak in 
 the freest manner of baptism by sprinkling. That they did 
 so speak under such circumstances, is just as certain as that 
 we have their writings. Either these men knew nothing of 
 the dipping, covering theory, or they were all, and several, 
 bereft of their senses when they wrote the books which have 
 come down to us. 
 
BAPTISM BY POURINa AND SPRINKLING. 199 
 
 DIDYMUS ALEXANDRINUS. 
 
 This distinguished Greek scholar tells us that " the image 
 of baptism" was ever with the Jews in its instructive and 
 saving power. 
 
 Can imagination conceive of any greater contrast than 
 that presented by Dr. Carson, in his conception of baptism 
 as a dipping of pots and cups and of the legs and shoulders 
 of sacrificial victims, and that of Didynius, as a source of 
 illumination and salvation ? 
 
 But worse, if possible, than this. Didymus places the 
 theorists in the very sharpest of dilemmas. He tells us that 
 this "image of baptism" is exemplified in the passage of 
 Paul, 1 Cor. 10 : 1, 2, and of Ezekiel 36 : 25, and David, Ps. 
 50 : 9. Every theorist accepts the first as an undoubted and 
 most charming " image of baptism." " What could be more 
 clear, or more striking, or more demonstrative of the truth- 
 fulness of the theory, than (the dipping?) the covering, by 
 the cloud and the water walls, of those in the depths of the 
 sea?" Maybe nothing; at least we have nothing, just now, 
 to eay against it. But what of that other " image of bap- 
 tism?" What of that "sprinkling with clean water" of 
 Ezekiel, and that " sprinkling with hyssop " of David ? 
 Please point out to us the overhanging cloud, the congealed 
 waters, the cavernous depths which "di^D, or at least com- 
 pletely cover," in this case ? Or, not to stand on particulars, 
 substitute for these items aught else, though they should 
 " shadow forth" the theory as " dimly" as the mythic burial 
 and resurrection of iToah. If time is wanted for imagina- 
 tion to work up the case, we will not press the solution. lu 
 the meanwhile we present this dilemma on behalf of the 
 Alexandrine Greek, viz. : Reject the E-ed Sea transaction as 
 an "image of baptism," or accept the sprinkling of Ezekiel 
 and David as equally an "image of baptism." There is a 
 baptism in each, in the one no more, no less, than the other, 
 or Didymus did not understand Greek. This alternative, to 
 be sure, would cause but little embarrassment to Carson ; 
 there is probably room enough for Didymus in that same 
 
200 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 school to which this never erring theorist proposes to send 
 the Angel Gabriel. 
 
 CYRIL OF JERUSALEM. 
 
 Our attention is again called, 1. To the power of baptism, 
 — TOO ^oKTifffiaroq. 2. To the fact that this power is developed 
 by " the sprinkling of pure water." If "line upon line" 
 will establish as truth that these baptisms were not dippings, 
 but the result of a divine power exerted through water, and 
 that sprinklings of this water were baptisms, then the truth 
 is established. 
 
 ORIGEN. 
 
 1. The use of "loti," washed, claims attention. It shows 
 the groundless character of the claim set up by Dr. Carson, 
 that loOo}, or lavo, when no part is specified, shall put the 
 whole man into water or in some way cover him with it. 
 This demand overlooks the fact that in religious washings 
 no mere physical cleansing is contemplated. And, conse- 
 quently, a man may be completely washed, religiously, by 
 the application of a cleansing element to a very limited part 
 of the bod3'. And that in such cases "washing" does not 
 refer to the local effect of the application, but to the nature 
 and extent of its religious influence. These things are clearly 
 shown by the present case. No one could be so irrational 
 as to suppose that this refers to a physical washing, l^one, 
 surely could be so infatuated by theory as to imagine that 
 Origen represents the martj'rs as "covered" in their blood. 
 Yet they are represented as washed by blood, completely 
 washed from head to foot, thoroughly washed body and soul. 
 How is this? Because there is a virtue, influence, power 
 ("jus," "vis," " 56iva/z£?,") in martyr blood, which takes away 
 sin and thus cleanses ; and this cleansing is called a washing, 
 which in no wise depends on the extent to which the blood 
 is applied. When Dr. Carson would make two kinds of 
 cleansing out of sprinkling and wo^shing by the blood of Christ, 
 (making the latter to cover,) he does that which is, absolutely, 
 without foundation. The same thing is indicated by either 
 
BAPTISM BY POURING AND SPRINKLING. 201 
 
 phraseology ; in the former the modal application is stated, 
 and in the other the result of the application. The same is 
 true with regard to purifying water or any other purifying 
 agency; no conclusion can be drawn as to the mode or ex- 
 tent of use, because the result is, religiously, a universal 
 washing. — Martyr blood, not one drop of which falls upon 
 the person, "washes" the whole man. The remembrance 
 of this usage would have saved from some great errors. 
 Sprinkling can wash from impurity, or from sin, as well as 
 a deluge of waters; and therefore may baptize, as Origen 
 declares martyr blood does. 
 
 2. Bajptisma sanguinis. — Baptism of blood, is phraseology 
 demanding consideration. This use of the genitive joins 
 with the simple ablative ("proprio sanguine"), as well as 
 with the exigencies of the case, to make imperative the con- 
 clusion, that in this baptism blood is the source whence comes 
 the causative influence inducing the baptism, and is not the 
 element in which an object is to be mersed, dipped, or covered. 
 To discriminate between the agency efi'ecting a baptism, and 
 the element within which the baptized object is placed (when 
 such element exists), is of vital importance. This is espe- 
 cially true where a fluid is the agency causative of the bap- 
 tism ; because a fluid is the natural element within which a 
 baptism takes place, and therefore, oft'ers a special facility 
 for the deception, by ourselves or others, which would rob 
 it of its true position as an agency and convert it into the 
 wholly distinct office of a receiving element. The case before 
 us is such as not only to assist in reaching, but to compel the 
 adoption of a true conclusion. The use of the cases, as just 
 indicated, would be enough for the scholar; but, possibly, 
 not enough for the controversialist. But even controver- 
 sialists, generally at least, will hold their peace in view of 
 the impossibility of a martyr being either dipped or covered 
 in his own blood. 
 
 Dr. Carson ought here, on his own principles, to run up 
 the white flag. He says, that in any case of use where a 
 primary meaning is impossible, there a secondary meaning 
 finds credentials of legitimate birth. Ifow, it is absolutely 
 
202 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 impossible for a martyr to be baptized, dipped, covered in 
 his blood, which Dr. C. says is primary baptism; but Origen 
 says that their own blood does baptize all Christian martyrs; 
 therefore, Origen must use "baptize" in a different sense 
 from the primary "dipping, covering." 
 
 This is logic, and common sense, and consistency, but, 
 alas! rhetoric slays them all. Hyperbole can expand "the 
 blood of a frog" to the dimensions of an ocean, and "dip a 
 lake" into it; and why should its magical arts prove incom- 
 petent to fill a baptistery with the blood-drops of martyrdom 
 and dip "the witness" into it? 
 
 The theory has executed feats as difficult as this, and we 
 have not much hope of the controversialist. But we ask 
 the attention of all others to the fact, that Origen declares 
 that their own blood baptizes martyrs, and that he wished 
 thus to be baptized himself, not to come out of a bloody pool all 
 dripping with gore, but that his condition as a sinner might be 
 thoroughly changed, and his soul pass, washed from all sin, 
 into the presence of God ! 
 
 3. Baptismum secundum. — This blood baptism was a " sec- 
 ond baptism;" what was the first? Water baptism. ISTow, 
 observe that between these two baptisms, as to their gene- 
 ral nature or modal execution, Origen does not make the 
 slightest distinction. In so far as they were baptisms there 
 was none to be miide. They were of the same general na- 
 ture, having power to cleanse from sin ; and as to modal 
 execution, such a thing was never known since the Greek 
 was a language, so far as the word was concerned. While, 
 therefore, the mode of executing the first baptism (by water) 
 may have differed from the mode of executing the second 
 baptism (by blood), this difference no more controls nor be- 
 longs to the baptism, than does the mode of martyrdom, by 
 beheading or crucifixion, affect the making or unmaking of 
 a blood baptism. 
 
 Water-baptism and blood-baptism are identified as bap- 
 tisms of like reality and character, (difi'ering only in the 
 measure of their value,) by being termed, without qualifica- 
 tion, a first and a second baptism. But we have farther evi- 
 
BAPTISM BY POURING AND SPRJENKLINa. 203 
 
 dence. Thej not only stand on the most absolute equality 
 as baptisms, but the water and the blood stands each, to its 
 own baptism, in precisely the same relation, namely, that of 
 an agency. As "baptisma sanguinis" indicates blood to be 
 the source of this baptism, so, "aquae baptismus" indicates 
 water as the source of that baptism- I^Teither water nor blood 
 — not water any more than blood — is represented as a re- 
 ceiving element; they are alike agencies. In full accord with 
 this grammatical testimony, is the unbroken Patristic testi- 
 mony, which ascribes to water a " power" to baptize, wholly 
 independent of its natural qualities as a fluid, which " power," 
 and not fluidity, is the pivot on which turns all their inter- 
 pretations of Judaic baptisms and of images of "the perfect 
 baptism." 
 
 ISTow, it is a matter of infinite indiff*erence in what man- 
 ner the water was employed in this first baptism. Employ 
 it as 3'Ou will, by sprinkling, by pouring, by dipping into it, 
 by walking into it to such a depth, or such a depth, and 
 dipping so much as may be left above the water, or by any 
 other simple or complex movements imaginable, and after 
 all is done, Origen declares that the water is an agency to 
 purify from sin, and that the baptism is a changed condition, 
 produced by this "power," independent of any modal use. 
 A baptism in water (drowning or covering indefinitely) has 
 no more to do with the "baptism 0/ water" of Origen, than 
 a baptism in wine (drowning or covering indefinitely) has to 
 do with a baptism o/wine (making thoroughly drunk). "Water 
 and wine, as fluids, have a quality of nature adapting them 
 to receive and envelop objects placed within them, and this 
 is called a baptism of those objects. "Wine has a quality of 
 nature (intoxicating) which develops itself, cot when objects 
 are put into it, but when drunk. And the development of 
 this influence by drinking, is called a baptism. These two 
 baptisms, in wine, as a receiving fluid, and of wine, as an in- 
 toxicating fluid, have this in common, that they both exhibit 
 their objects under a thoroughly changed condition; but as 
 to the nature of the condition, and as to the mode of effect- 
 ing the condition, the differences are such as to present noth- 
 
204 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 ing in common. Patristic water has a " power," not intoxi- 
 cating, but spiritually purifying; not of nature, but by special 
 divine communication; which "power," like that of wine, is 
 capable of baptizing. Its development is effected by sprink- 
 ling, by pouring, and by washing. A man baptized by this 
 "power" of water, differs from a man baptized in "simple" 
 water, just as a soul without a sin-spot differs from a man 
 who is — very loet. Origen's philology is unimpeachable; hia 
 theology is not so good. 
 
 CYPRIAN. 
 
 Cyprian offers the same testimony as that already con- 
 sidered. 
 
 1. Water has a power to baptize. But this power is not 
 a quality inherent. " The Spirit cannot baptize without 
 water, nor can water baptize without the Spirit." How ab- 
 surdly untrue would this be if the writer referred to water 
 as capable of receiving an object within itself. This, surely, 
 it can do without the special intervention of the Holy Spirit. 
 In this respect the heathen had baptisms; yet they were not 
 baptisms, because the water was used without the Spirit, 
 and no baptism was effected; the condition of the soul re- 
 mained unchanged. 
 
 2. Therefore, Cyprian says: "The water itself must be 
 first purified, sanctified, baptized, that it may by its own 
 baptism wipe off the sins of the baptized man." So Tertul- 
 lian says: "Ita de sancto sanctificata natura aquarura, et ipsa 
 sanctificare concepit." Is it not surprising that the friends 
 of the theory should have overlooked the great gulf which 
 separates baptisms hy such water, from baptisms in water, 
 through a natural enveloping quality ? 
 
 3. Cyprian quotes the text under consideration, to show 
 that these peculiar baptisms were effected by the "sprink- 
 ling" of this pure water. 
 
 How marvellously inept is the objection that sprinkling 
 cannot baptize by the "power" of this water! Go tell the 
 old Greeks that drinking cannot baptize by the power of 
 
BAPTISM BY POURINa AND SPRINKLING. 205 
 
 wine, that hearing cannot baptize by the power of bewilder- 
 ing questions, and they will tell you that your Greek sounds 
 very "modern" in their ears. "But these w^ere cases of 
 'figure.'" Yes, very much such "figure" as that of Gate, 
 which made Carson laugh; and very much such "figure" 
 as that of Carson, which might well make Fuller smile; 
 and very much such "figure" as that of Fuller, at which 
 some friend, who comes after him, will yet- kindly smile ; 
 while all the world will laugh at a theory which fills the 
 Classics with figure-pools and torrents, and empties the 
 treasury of rhetoric to meet the exhaustive demand from 
 Patrists for a dipping ornamentation. 
 
 4. Cyprian quotes, besides this passage of Ezekiel, those 
 in Numb. 19 : 13; Numb. 8:7; Numb. 19 : 19; for the ex- 
 press purpose of showing that the baptizing power of water 
 is developed by sprinkling, as truly as by any other mode. 
 
 CLEMENS ALEXANDRINUS. 
 
 This learned Greek declares that a second baptism may 
 be by tears, as the learned Origen had declared that it might 
 be by martyr-blood. Shall this baptism, by sprinkling tears, 
 give origin to another figure — hyperbolic? Well, I suppose 
 that is the best disposition which the theory can make of it. 
 
 Alongside of these clear and reiterated statements of bap- 
 tisms by sprinkling of water, blood, and tears, look at these 
 statements of Dr. Carson : " Sprinkling cannot be called bap- 
 tism 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." (p. 392.) This is undoubt- 
 edly true on Dr. C.'s theory as to the meaning of the word, 
 viz., " dip, and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature." 
 But to make good this theory, it will be necessary to enlarge 
 the school-house at Tubbermore, and provide primers for all 
 the old Greeks, and the whole army of Patrists, that they 
 may learn anew their native tongue. 
 
 Again (p. 400): "If one instance of sprinkling was called 
 immersion, I would give up the point of univoeal meaning." 
 
206 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Let US see: "Qui enim baptizatur . . . Moyses aspergebat." 
 According to Carson, "baptize" always means immerse; then 
 Ambrose says, "He who was immersed . . Moses sprinkled." 
 Again : "He was sprinkled with the blood of the lamb, who 
 wished to be cleansed with typical immersion (baptism)." Is 
 this the lightning which Dr. Carson called for to smite his 
 univocalism ? And (p. 401) : "A people who called a puri- 
 fying, by sprinkling or pouring, a baptism! ! ! Where is such 
 a people ? I^Tot under the heavens. The facts alleged to prove 
 this, are all mere assumptions." Pretty substantial assump- 
 tions. And with Clement, and Cyprian, and Origen, and 
 Cyril, and Didymus, and Hilary, and Jerome, as represen- 
 tatives of " the people who call purifying, by pouring or 
 sprinkling, a baptism," the neighborhood " where such peo- 
 ple may be found," is, at least, proximately answered. 
 
 The Greeks, or the theorists, certainly are in trouble as 
 to what constitutes a baptism. The theorists say that angels 
 and inspired men are wrong if they do not agree with them, 
 and I suppose we may as well throw in the Greeks (Classics 
 and Patrists) into the bargain. 
 
 CIKCUMCISION BAPTISM. 
 
 BAPTISM BY CmCUMCISION. 
 JosnuA 5 : 3, 9. 
 
 "And Joshua made him sharp knives, and circumcised the 
 children of Israel, at the hill, of the foreskins. 
 
 "And the Lord said unto Joshua, This day have I rolled away 
 the reproach of Egypt from off you." 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 Tiq oZv eTi fioi TzepiToiiTJ'^ Xoyoq unb rod 0eou /iapTup7)6ivTC. Tiq ixetvou 
 TOO ^aTZTKTixaroq ;^/>£t'a ayiu) T:\)sb[xari j3ej3aT:Ti(TfJiiv(i). 
 
 "What, then, is the word of circumcision to me, having re- 
 ceived testimony from God ? What need is there of that bap- 
 tism to one baptized by the Holy Spirit ?" 
 
BAPTISM BY CIRCUMCISION. 207 
 
 ^Exeh'oq Xiyerac Seuripav izepnoixy^v . . . . rji; Tzeptireixev i][ia.q diuroq 
 *Irjaouq XpiffToq. 
 
 " He is said to have circumcised the people with a second cir- 
 cumcision, by stony knives, which was an announcement of 
 this circumcision with which Jesus Christ himself circumcises 
 us from stones and other idols." — Justin Martyr^ 437; 757. 
 
 IlepcTOfiij, ruTCixTJ ohaa aifpaylq. 
 
 "For it is better to be sanctified unconsciously, than to depart 
 unsealed and imperfect. And the evidence to us, of this, is cir- 
 cumcision on the eighth day, being a typical seal, and adminis- 
 tered to those without intelligence." — Gregory IVasianzen, ii, 400. 
 
 Tijv 7:veu[iaTurjV Xap-ftdvofxev GcppayWa dyiu) UveupLarc dtd too Xouvpou 
 nepiTspvdpLsvoc. . . . 'Ev rfj itepiropiTJ rod Xptarou. 
 
 " Therefore, by the likeness of the faith of Abraham, we come 
 into adoption. And, then, after faith, like to him, we receive 
 the spiritual seal, being circumcised through washing by the 
 Holy Spirit. .... By the circumcision of Christ, being buried 
 with him by baptism." — Cyril^ 513. 
 
 ** Videamus tamen quale sit hoc ipsura quod dicitur, quia ho- 
 die abstuli opprobrium a filiis Israel. Omnes homines etlamsi 
 ex lege veniant, etiamsi per Moyses eruditi sint, habent tamen 
 opprobrium vEgypti in semet ipsis, ojiprobrium peccatorum. . . . 
 Sed ex quo venit Christus, et dedit nobis secundam circumcisi- 
 onem per baptismum regenerationis, et purgavit animas nostras, 
 abjecimus haec omnia, et pro iis assumpsimus conscientiae bonao 
 astipulationem in Domino. Tunc per secundam circumcisionem 
 ablata sunt nobis opprobria ^gypti, et purgata sunt vitia pecca- 
 torum. . . . Audis quia hodie abstulit a te opprobrium ^gypti." 
 
 "We may see, however, what means that saying: 'To-day, 
 I have taken away reproach from the children of Isi-ael.' All 
 men, even though they may come from the law, even though 
 they may have been taught by Moses, have, notwithstanding, in 
 themselves, the reproach of Eg3'^pt, the reproach of sins. . . . 
 But since Christ came and gave to us the second circumcision 
 b}'' the baptism of regeneration, and purged our souls, we have 
 cast away all these things, and in their stead have received the 
 answer of a good conscience in the Lord. Then, by the second 
 
208 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 circumcision the reproaches of Egypt have been taken away 
 from us, and the vices of our sins have been ■ purged. Thou 
 hearest that to-day he takes from thee the reproach of Egypt." 
 —Origen, ii, 8'50, 852. 
 
 Circumcision is a Baptism. 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 Justin Martyr explicitly declares that circumcision is a 
 baptism. This declaration is marked neither by hesitation 
 nor by qualification. He makes no explanation of the use 
 as though it were unusual and needed apology; but simply 
 and absolutely, as though well understood, he speaks, cur- 
 rente verbo, of circumcision as a baptism. 
 
 This use of the word is too palpable to be denied. Is, 
 then, univocalism abandoned ? The promise was that it 
 would be when one case of sprinkling was called baptism. 
 Such case has been adduced, and now we present another 
 quite as far removed from a dippuig as is sprinkling. Dr. 
 Carson boasts that " no case has been adduced where the 
 word must have any other meaning than dipping." Does 
 circumcision mean dipping ? 
 
 But what does Dr. Carson say of this case ? This (p. 490) : 
 " He sometimes, also, speaks of circumcision as a baptism, 
 or agreeing in the emblem, though altoii^ether different in 
 the things and in the words that designate them. Study 
 this, and it will show how the Fathers can call various 
 things by the name of baptism, without importing that they 
 are iucluded in the meaning of the word." 
 
 " Study this," the Doctor says. Another development of 
 his penchant for sending folks " to school." But some things 
 cannot be studied out, in school, without the help of " the 
 master," and this Delphic utterance is, surely, one of them. 
 
 Dr. Carson has written a book of half a thousand pages, 
 to prove that baptism is a modal act — and nothing but a 
 modal act, and claims that if there is any truth in axioms 
 he has settled such to be its meaning; and yet, a case, ad- 
 mittedly called " baptism " by a highly cultivated Greek 
 
BAPTISM BY CIRCUMCISION. 209 
 
 philosopher, in which the act done differs fiom the act 
 claimed to be proved by axioms, as far as pole from pole, 
 and as absolutely as a straight line from a circle, is dismissed 
 in five sphynxic lines thrown out for " study ! " Every de- 
 feated leader has a right to choose his own method and line 
 of retreat. It is generally done under the cover of thick 
 darkness ; and so it is here. 
 
 While I do not understand these lines and give up their 
 "study," there are some things in them and about them of 
 which we may speak. ■ 
 
 1. "He sometimes speaks of cutting around (circumcision) 
 as a dipping (baptism)." Does any one believe that Justin. 
 Martyr ever spoke of the act of" cutting around" as an act 
 of "dipping?" Has such a statement, enunciated by any 
 one, a claim to anything but silent incredulity? 
 
 2. Where does Dr. C. get that addendum. — " or agreeing in 
 the emblem ? " There is not one syllable of it in the words 
 of Justin ; nor one to justify its introduction. Justin calls 
 circumcision a baptism, and baptism it must remain in spite 
 of any attempt by light-handedness to change it into some- 
 thing else. 
 
 3. But what is meant by — "or agreeing in the emblem?" 
 It, of course, flatly denies that circumcision is a baptism; 
 which Justin had straitly affirmed; but, apart from this, after 
 the Martyr's statement has been murdered, w^hat usurper is 
 appointed to its place ? On this same page we are told that 
 the converted Greek philosopher believed that baptism was 
 immersion, and that he believed that immersion was em- 
 blematical of death, burial, and resurrection; now does cir- 
 cumcision agree with immersion as an emblem of death, 
 burial, and resurrection? 
 
 Dr. Carson might say in unravelling — "study this" — cer- 
 tainly this is its emblem: the flesh cut off dies; who can deny 
 that it was buried ? The burden of proof does not lie with 
 me; that it may be buried is enough for my purpose; proof 
 after so many ages cannot be asked ; and, as for resurrection, 
 "who that has a soul" cannot see it in the life of the babe, 
 beautifully developing after the "death" and "burial "of 
 
 14 
 
210 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 its own flesh ! Or, with less of rhetoric, but more of learn- 
 iug, th3 "student" might be instructed thus: "Circum" 
 means around; and, if dimly yet beautifully, shadows forth 
 the waters which are ai^ound every immersed disciple; while 
 the act of "scision" cannot go "around" without first de- 
 scending and then ascending, and as a downward movement 
 and an upward movement are involved in every case of " dip- 
 ping," what could be a more beautiful emblem of this act ? 
 Circum-cision, therefore, is a beautiful emblem of dipping 
 and surrounding with water! Undoubtedly. How surprising 
 that things made palpable, under a competent teacher, by a 
 few luminous words, should otherwise remain, hid for ages! 
 Why this, before incomprehensible emblem of death, burial, 
 and resurrection in circumcision, is, now, just as plain as the 
 death, burial, and resurrection of E'oah in the flood, of Israel 
 walking between the water-walls, and of the disciples in the 
 wind! "Not so much light as Christian honesty," must be 
 wanting in the man who cannot see a demonstration so plain 
 as this! 
 
 Having suflSciently admired at these profundities in the 
 school of Tubbermore, let us now turn in another direction. 
 
 4. Admitting, or certainly not questioning, the exegesis 
 to which we have just attended, we are under the necessity 
 of putting its remarkable light "under a bushel," inasmuch 
 as there is no " emblem " in, nor introducible into, the state- 
 ment of Justin. This is absolutely certain. This attempt 
 to ally the circumcision baptism of Justin with the ritual 
 baptism of the theory, is all in the air. It is as foundation- 
 less as a dream of the night. The statement is: "Of what 
 use to me is circumcision baptism, having been baptized by 
 the Holy Spirit?" What " emblem " is there here? What 
 room is there for its introduction by the most heated imagi- 
 nation ? Is there any death, burial, resurrection, or dipping, 
 in "baptism by the Holy Spirit?" Is not the statement 
 simply and clearly this : Having received a perfect baptism, 
 what need have I of an imperfect baptism ? 
 
 Dr. Carson, instead of raising the question, "May I not 
 have mistaken the nature of a baptism?" when he meets 
 
BAPTISM BY CIRCUMCISION. 211 
 
 with the word in circumstances irreconcilable with his con- 
 ception of it, sets to work to cloud the inconsistency, so that 
 its rude outlines may be as little repulsive as possible. I do 
 not say that he does this consciously, to evade truth; for I 
 believe that his ideas upon this subject were so fully regarded 
 as absolute truth, that he would, in very deed as he says that 
 he would, have told the Angel Gabriel, denying it, to sit down 
 at his feet and " study this." 
 
 This writer, after affirming with all the emphasis of which 
 language is capable, that " baptize " must always, everywhere, 
 mean dip ; and after resorting to all sorts of figures to bring 
 it "dimly" out, where it confessedly was not, in fact; and 
 after subjecting common sense to torture, (so that with its 
 dislocated members it was no longer recognizable,) in order 
 to secure some cry that might sound like " dip," is now com- 
 pelled to admit, that here is a case in which there is no dip- 
 ping, in which figure can form no shadow of dipping, and in 
 which common sense presents no bone unbroken by which, 
 on the rack, a groan might be extorted to save a dipping. 
 We leave the case, in extremis, to be medicated by any heroic 
 remedies which the wit of the fast friends of the theory may 
 suggest. In the meanwhile we seek an exposition of the 
 passage under other auspices. 
 
 Justin was a Greek. He spoke and wrote the language 
 of Homer and Plato. He had the knowledge to speak it 
 correctly; he had the right to use it with the same breadth 
 of freedom ; and he has authority in his usage equal to that 
 of any Classic. Classic usage has been examined. It has 
 been proved to the satisfaction of Greek scholars, (between 
 whose attainments, and those of Dr. Carson, I wish not to 
 make invidious comparisons,) that ^anriZu) does not make de- 
 mand for a definite act, as Dr. C. declares, but for condition: 
 1. With inness of position. 2. Condition, controlled by in- 
 fluence, without intusposition. Or, stated in terms suffi- 
 ciently comprehensive to embrace both classes: "Whatever 
 act or influence is capable of thoroughly changing the char- 
 acter, state, or condition of an object, is capable of baptizing 
 that object, and by such change of character, state, or con- 
 
212 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 dition, assimilating that condition to itself, does in fact, 
 baptize it." 
 
 Classic usage presents such an endless variety in the forms 
 of action and in the natures of condition, that no limitation 
 can be assigned to either, beyond that in the statement now 
 made. 
 
 Apply, now, that result reached, by a detailed study of 
 every known case of Classic Baptism, to the case in hand. 
 Is it capable of expounding it ? If not, there must be error 
 or imperfection, for a complete definition must fairly cover 
 every case of usage, without exception. In reply, we may 
 pass by the form of the act, for with this baptism has nothing 
 to do, and limit our evidence to the competency of the act 
 or influence to thoroughly change the condition of its object. 
 This, then, is the determining question: "Does circumcision 
 change the character, state, or condition of the circumcised 
 person?" Can the most devoted friend of the theory answer 
 this question in the negative ? Is not every circumcised per- 
 son, man or babe, taken by circumcision out of an uucove- 
 nanted condition, and brought into a covenanted condition? 
 It is not necessary to raise here the question as to the nature 
 of this covenant, whether it embraced spiritual blessings, or 
 was limited to those which were temporal; either answers 
 our purpose perfectly well. The condition demanded by 
 the word requires nothing beyond completeness and assimi- 
 lation. Circumcision, as a covenant seal, brings into a new 
 condition as to the promises of God, whatever the character 
 of those promises may be. 
 
 If there is any authority in Classic usage, Justin is over- 
 shadowed by all the fulness of that authority, when he calls 
 circumcision a baptism. One square foot does not more 
 fully cover another square foot than does the definition 
 cover this case of usage. Consider, now, the defiance which 
 it ofiers to all the manipulations of the theory, to bring it 
 under the control of its errors, and can there be any doubt 
 as to the answer which should be given to the inquiry, 
 "What is truth?" The theory is bankrupt. 
 
 Circumcision by Stony Knives. — Carson says: "In like man- 
 
BAPTISM BY CIRCUMCISION. 213 
 
 ner Justin speaks of Christians as having the spiritual cir- 
 cumcision of which Greeks, and those like him, were par- 
 takers, though they had nothing that literally resembled what was 
 imported by the word." This admission springs a mine beneath 
 the Doctor's theorizing, which makes it a hopeless wreck. 
 In scores of cases, in Classic usage, he has attempted to find 
 out a resemblance — where there was none — to the literal 
 meaning of the word, as claimed by him. Thus he hunts 
 up some figure by which he can convert the covered and 
 uncovered sea-shore into a beautiful case of "dipping." "In 
 like manner " water poured upon an altar is converted into 
 a dipping. " In like manner " drunkenness becomes a dip- 
 ping, sleep becomes a dipping, sickness becomes a dipping, 
 magical arts become a dipping, hard study becomes a dip- 
 ping, an overloaded stomach becomes a dipping, &c., &c., &c. 
 And for what is all this irrational procedure? Why, in good 
 Booth, to establish a philological miracle; to show that a word 
 of physical form of act (so claimed) carries that form of act 
 with it out of the physical into the metaphysical world, and 
 where the act is drinking, hearing, seeing, eating, thinking, still 
 it is "dipping!" Can the history of philology parallel so 
 wild an assumption of the infinite credulity of men ? And 
 all this rather than accept that so universal principle, of a 
 secondary meaning to words, as applicable to this word. 
 
 But after trampling under foot confessedly contradictory 
 facts, and transmuting, by some Rosicrucian principle, "one 
 form of act into another form of act;" and after ransacking 
 imagination to discover " a resemblance " to the physical 
 form, or, at least, some shadowy picture, we have at lust the 
 confession, that a word which literally expresses a definite 
 form of action, may be applied to cases in which there is 
 " nothing that literally resembles what was imported by the 
 word." It is hardly necessary to say, that under such cir- 
 cumstances either the word has lost all meaning, or it has 
 acquired a secondary meaning. 
 
 But while Dr. Carson abandons, incontinently, all attempt 
 to discover a " cutting around," real or pictured, in the cir- 
 cumcision by Christ received by Justin, he challenges angela 
 
214 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 and men to deny that there was a " dipping," in the baptism 
 by the Holy Spirit^ received bj this same Justin. If it should 
 be said, that the admission of Dr. Carson that circumcision 
 has lost its form of act, does not imply that baptism has lost 
 its form of act, I answer: 1. There is no form of act in bap- 
 tism, to lose. 2. Any one who admits that "circumcision" 
 has lost its form of act in circumcision by Christy and denies 
 that "baptism" has lost its form of act in baptism by the 
 Holy Spirit^ has certainly lost his reason. 
 
 This rejection of what is vital to a word in its primary use, 
 and the adoption of some associated idea in secondary use, 
 is of constant development. "I am an American," means, 
 primarily, I am born on American soil. But one born on the 
 other side of the globe may say, "I am an American," re- 
 jecting claim to birth, and claiming to hold the principles 
 which distinguish American citizens. Paul says of uncir- 
 cumcised Christians, ye are the circumcision, because they 
 held the principles which appertained to circumcision; and he 
 denies that the circumcised Jew was of the circumcision, be- 
 cause they rejected those principles. The same thing is ex- 
 hibited in the declaration, "They are not all Israel which 
 are of Israel." In such usage there is a modification of the 
 primary meaning, and the development of a conception 
 which was subordinately in the primary meaning, or which 
 had become an outgrowth of it, or an accretion around it. 
 So ftaTtri^o} rejects the form of condition belonging to its lit- 
 eral, primary use, and develops the idea of controlling influ- 
 ence, growing out of such form of condition. 
 
 Justin's baptism " by the Holy Spirit" rejects form of con- 
 dition and expresses the controlling influence of the Divine 
 Spirit; just as "circumcision by Christ" rejects the form of 
 act and confers the reality exhibited by that act. 
 
 I do not enter upon any detailed examination of "baptism 
 by the Holy Spirit," as here spoken of, (it will come up in 
 its place,) but merely remark, that as there is no more of 
 dipping or covering in this baptism than there is in baptism 
 by circumcision ; so, if the theory stumbles at the one, it 
 ought to fall down discomfited before the other. 
 
BAPTISM BY CIRCUMCISION. 215 
 
 GREGORY NAZIANZEN. 
 
 Circumcision, tyioical Bajpiism. — This writer teaches that cir- 
 cumcision was a typical seal or baptism ; and as this type 
 baptism was administered to infants eight days old, when 
 intelligence was yet undeveloped, so the antitype seal, or 
 baptism should be administered to those who were in danger 
 of dying, whether infants or adults, as was the common 
 practice. It should be observed, that while Justin speaks of 
 baptisni by circumcision, he contrasts it, as to efficacy, with 
 baptism by the Holy Spirit, while Gregory makes circum- 
 cision baptism a type of ritual baptism. If the Fathers had 
 regarded Christian baptism as only a type or symbol bap- 
 tism, they could not have made these Judaic baptisms types 
 of it, for there cannot be a type of a type; but they believed 
 it to be an efficacious baptism, one of divine power over the 
 condition of the soul, and therefore, could, consistently, 
 make it the antitype of Old Testament typical purifications. 
 Justin Martyr was more orthodox than those that came after 
 him, and he refers type baptism to baptism by the Holy 
 Spirit, without the intervention of water. 
 
 CYRIL. 
 
 Circumcised by Washing. — " Circumcised by the Holy Spirit 
 through washing." In this circumcision, the prime, efficient 
 agent is the Holy Spirit, the efficient, instrumental agency 
 is "the washing," and the result is an unfleshly, spiritual 
 nature. 
 
 We have here, proof, 1. Of the type character of circum- 
 cision; that it was a purification of the flesh, and therefore 
 was called a baptism which was suitable to foreshadow that 
 spiritual purification which cleansed the soul, and was the 
 work of the Holy Spirit. 2. The Holy Spirit operated 
 through the water to take away sin. 
 
 Mem. — Cyril, Gregory, and Justin forgot to point out the 
 resemblance to death, burial, and resurrection, in this type 
 baptism. 
 
216 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 BAPTISM BY DKOPS OF BLOOD. 
 Exodus 12 : 7, 12, 13. 
 
 '* And they shall take of the blood, and strike it on the two 
 side posts, and on the upper door-post of the houses. 
 
 " For I will pass through the land of Egypt this night, and 
 will smite all the first-born in the land of Egypt. 
 
 "And the blood shall be to you for a token upon the houses 
 where ye are; and when I see the blood I will pass over you." 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 "Pascha nostrum pro nobis immolatus est Christus Deus." 
 ^EiTza^e yap to ai/ia olko zyjc; TzXeupaq iiu. tyjv yyjv, xal tov fioXuffpov abrjjq 
 aTzavra t^exd6rjp£v. . . . 
 
 Aia T7f<; i'^opokoyTQffSioq iy.dSrjpev tauzov zou ^unou zihv dpapzTj/j.dzu}v, 
 "Christ the Lord, our Passover, was slain for us. Why was 
 he slain without the city, and on a high place, and not under 
 some roof? This was not without reason, but that he might 
 purify the nature of the air. For this reason was he slain on 
 high and not beneath a roof, but with the heavens stretched 
 over him instead of a roof, that the whole heavens might be 
 purified. Therefore the sky was purified, and the earth was 
 purified. For the blood from his side dropped upon the earth, and 
 purged away all its defilement. . . . He (the thief) did not dare 
 to say, 'Eemember me' until that by confession he purified 
 himself from the pollution of sins. . . . For the strength of con- 
 fession is great, and it has great power. For he confessed, and 
 behold he found Paradise opened ; he confessed, and he, who 
 was a robber, received boldness to ask a kingdom." — Chrysostom, 
 ii, 406, 409. 
 
 Kal zauza jSaTzztao/iev ] . . . ax; dk xai ij zw'^ ^Xicov ^pi(7«;, dcd zcav 
 dvaiadrjZiov tpuldzzouaa zd Tzpuizozo/.a. 
 
 "And shall we baptize these (infants) ? Certainly; . . . the 
 evidence of this is circumcision, which is a typical seal .... 
 and in like manner, the smearing of the door-posts, protecting, 
 through these insensible things, the first-born." — Gregory Nazi- 
 anzen, ii, 400. 
 
 BaKZiapnv utq xaOapruo'j 6vza ndvzcvv i]pu)v. 
 
BAPTISM BY DROPS OF BLOOD. 217 
 
 ** He calls his death baptism as being a purging of us all." — 
 Theophylact, Matt. 22. 
 
 " Hos duo baptismos de vulnere perfossi lateris emisit." 
 " These two baptisms he shed forth from the wound of his 
 pierced side." — Tertullian, 357; Paris, 1634. 
 
 "Baptisma publicaa confessionis et sanguinis proficere ad sa- 
 lutem potest. . . . Sanguine suo baptizatos et passione." 
 
 "The baptism of a public confession and of blood may avail 
 for salvation, (but not to a heretic out of the church.) The Lord 
 declares in the Gospel, that those baptized by his blood and 
 passion are sanctified and attain the grace of the divine prom- 
 ise, when he speaks to the thief believing and trusting in the 
 very passion, and promises that he shall be with him in Para- 
 dise."— Cx/pnan, 1123, 1124. 
 
 To ai;j.a rod Tzpof^drou Turzoq rod alixaroq rou XpiffTou. 
 
 " The blood of the lamb is a type of the blood of Christ." — 
 Basil, M. iv, 124. 
 
 Baptism of " the First-born." 
 
 This passage, and the interpretations directly and indi- 
 rectly connected with it, establishes in the most conclusive 
 manner, that there is a class of baptisms with which neither 
 the act of dipping, nor a covering, efiected in any way, has 
 anything to do. And more than this; it is established that 
 the source of the baptizing power need not even be in con- 
 tact with the baptized object. 
 
 Gregory ITazianzeu speaks of circumcision as typical of 
 baptism, "and in like manner" the blood smeared on the 
 door-posts of the families of Israel. The argument which 
 he extracts from them is this : Inasmuch as typical circum- 
 cision was able to influence the condition of the child, which 
 was all unconscious of the transaction, and inasmuch as 
 typical blood upon the door-posts destitute of all intelligence, 
 was capable of influencing the condition of the child, un- 
 conscious of the transaction and untouched by the blood, 
 yet on whose behalf that blood was sprinkled by parents in 
 the way appointed by God ; therefore, infant children with- 
 
218 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 out any intelligence as to the ordinance, may receive antitype 
 baptism, and be changed as to their condition by receiving 
 a more perfect purification through the antitype, than type 
 circumcision could effect; and a more perfect salvation than 
 the type blood of the passover lamb could bring to " the 
 first-born." This was Patristic reasoning; and whatever 
 else it may show, it does show conclusively, that, in their 
 view, type baptisms shadowed forth the cleansing of the 
 soul from sin and its redemption unto eternal life, by puri- 
 fications of the body, and the preservation of the natural 
 life, and did not shadow forth " a dipping" or "a covering." 
 
 When the root idea of all baptisms, (thorough change of 
 condition,) is apprehended, not only can no embarrassment 
 arise from the absence of a dipping or a covering, but, also, 
 no embarrassment can arise from a baptism declared to be 
 effected by a baptizing substance which does not touch the 
 baptized object. 
 
 Whether water, blood, or ashes shall be used in divine 
 worship is a matter of sovereign appointment. How they 
 shall be used, and what shall be their value, are matters of 
 the same pure sovereignty. That blood, blood of a lamb, 
 should be used in the Passover; that it should be used by 
 "striking;" that this striking should be against the door- 
 posts; that the transaction should enure to the benefit of 
 "the first-born," were all matters pertaining, not to the 
 nature of things, however wise and fit they may have been, 
 but to the good pleasure of Israel's God. It being thus 
 determined that the condition of "the first-born" should be 
 changed, not by dipping them into water, nor by covering 
 them with blood; but by God-fearing parents striking the 
 family door-posts with the bloodied hyssop branch, thus 
 bringing them out of a condition of impending death, into a 
 condition of unimperilled life, this change of condition, with- 
 out the slightest regard to the mode of its accomplishment, 
 is Classically as well as Patristically called a BajjUsm. They 
 were baptized into a condition of safety by the sprinkled 
 blood. Any attempt to solve such baptisms by " a dip- 
 ping" of these little ones must be made under protest from 
 
BAPTISM OP THE EARTH, AIR, AND SKY. 219 
 
 philology and common sense; not made very loud, but 
 enough to clear their skirts against any charge that might 
 be made hereafter of their being guilty participants, even 
 by silence, in such unwisdom. 
 
 It will be observed that I use the phraseology out of one 
 condition into another condition, although there is no move- 
 ment "out of" anything, or "into" anything. There is no 
 change of position. The reason is, 1. The poverty of lan- 
 guage. 2. Analogical fitness in some respects. In physical 
 ihrngQ, change involves movement; and movement ow^ o/one 
 thing into another thing, involves complete change; when, 
 therefore, there is " a change," not of position but condition, 
 it may be expressed by a word immediately declaring move- 
 ment, but implying, necessarily, the idea of "change;" and 
 when the change is a complete one, we may introduce "out 
 of" and " into," because of what they involve, {thorough 
 change,) and not because of what they directly and of them- 
 selves express; thus giving them, in such usage, a real 
 secondary value, while movement has disappeared. 
 
 "The first-born" passed out of one condition into another 
 condition, as the destroying angel passed over them, with- 
 out passing, for one moment, from the quiet shelter of their 
 mother's bosom. 
 
 BAPTISM OF THE EARTH, AIR, AND SKY. 
 
 Chrysostom in speaking of the results attendant upon the 
 sacrifice of our Passover Lamb, Christ the Lord, declares, 
 without using directly the word, that the earth, and the air, 
 and the sky were thereby baptized. No one, who remem- 
 bers by what varied terms and descriptions the Patrists set 
 forth baptism, will hesitate to acknowledge a baptism as 
 taught, (though the word should not appear,) merely on the 
 ground of the absence of that word. That a baptism is here 
 designed is shown, 1. By the baptizing power attributed to 
 the person of Christ. 2. By the pre-eminent power attributed 
 to his shed blood. 3. By the sameness of phraseology em- 
 ployed, as when avowedly describing a baptism. 4. By the 
 express use of the word " baptism" by other writers in con- 
 
220 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 nection with this transaction. 5. By the baptism ascribed 
 to the repentant thief. 
 
 The propriety of attributing a baptism to the earth, air, 
 and sky, by the crucifixion of Christ, on the summit of Cal- 
 vary, beneath the heavens, and with his blood dropping upon 
 the earth, is found in the claim, that their condition was 
 thoroughly changed thereby. 
 
 Chrysostom tells us, that before this great transaction the 
 world at large was impure and unfit for divine worship, 
 Judea and the temple only being sanctified to this end; but 
 by the death of Christ outside of the city, " lifted up with 
 no covering roof, the whole earth became sanctified;" so 
 that men could "lift up holy hands, acceptable to God, 
 everywhere." lie expounds his "lifting up" upon the cross 
 as designed "to purify tlie nature of the air," therefore, ef- 
 fectually to change its condition. So, of the overhanging 
 heavens, "purified." 
 
 As to the competency of a few drops of blood from the 
 pierced side of the Son of God " to baptize " this whole earth, 
 no one who reads the Patrists can have any doubt that they 
 believed in such efficacy, or that they could consistently em- 
 ploy such language. 
 
 The justification of such usage is found in the true nature 
 of /SaTTTt'^w, which they well understood, and use in this case, 
 as might be expected, with the utmost propriety. 
 
 It is but a short time since the friends of the theory ridi- 
 culed a bapiing by a few blood-drops. They have learned 
 better; and now admit that a few drops (to express it pre- 
 cisely in English as in Greek) can dip. Hippocrates says, 
 ^E-KsiSdv kruGrd^rj Ijidzia (idr^rerai. "When it dvops upou the gar- 
 ments they are dipped (dyed)." 
 
 Chrysostom uses the same verb and the same preposition 
 to express the dropping blood from the Redeemer's side, by 
 which he saj's the world was baptized, changed as to its con- 
 dition, being purified and sanctified universally to the service 
 and worship of God. 
 
 Theorists now believe that the Father of Medicine wrote 
 good Greek when he said "coloring drops can dip (dye)." 
 
BAPTISM OF THE PENITENT THIEF. 221 
 
 We wait for their confession that "the Golden Mouth" 
 understood Greek as well, when he claims the purging of the 
 world, by blood-drops from the cross, to be a baptism. 
 
 BAPTISM OP THE PENITENT THIEF. 
 
 The baptism of the penitent thief is another exemplifica- 
 tion of the truth of the principles relied upon for the inter- 
 pretation of baptisms. 
 
 In it there is neither "dipping" nor " covering," any more 
 than in the baptism of "the earth, and air, and sky." IsTor 
 are there even a few drops of blood which hyperbole might 
 magnify into a pool; for those blood-drops upon him are 
 not of "a witness" for Christ, but witnesses of his guilt as 
 a thief. Nor do "those two baptisms shed forth from the 
 Saviour's side," of which TertuUian speaks, reach his firmly 
 nailed body. How then, was he baptized? Chrysostom 
 and Cyril both answer by " the baptism of confession." This 
 baptism was grounded in the Saviour's declaration — " He 
 that confesseth me before men, him will I confess before my 
 Father in heaven." Hence the '■^ power " of confession became 
 a subject for eulogy. The former of these two winters says, 
 that the thief "purified himself from the pollutions of sin 
 by confession.'^ He declares that " the strength of confession 
 is great and has great power." "He confessed, and behold 
 he found Paradise opened." 
 
 How entirely removed is the conception of these writers 
 and their associates as to the nature of a baptism, from that 
 presented by the theory, is manifest from their speaking of 
 "confession," and "blood," and "water" as possessed of 
 '■'■power" and therefore competent to baptize. There is not 
 a syllable which likens them to pools, floods, or torrents. 'Eo 
 such elements of thought are introduced by them into the 
 explanation of these baptisms. This antagonism of view 
 between the modern theory and these Greeks is, alone, suf- 
 ficient to convict of error, unless, indeed, these ancient 
 worthies also, are to be "sent to school." Such course, in 
 this case, might prove dangerous, for Chrysostom has the 
 credit of having overmastered his master, (the most cele- 
 
222 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 brated of his day,) while yet in his teens. That measuring- 
 rod at Tubbermore which we are told is applied, as a matter 
 of conscience, to the talents of everj^ opposer of the theory 
 might prove too short. 
 
 The "baptisma confessionis" without dipping; without 
 "pouring long enough to cover;" without "washing, which 
 may be by bathing and therefore by immersion ;" without 
 a cleansing of the feet, "which may be done by putting them 
 into it, which is an immersion as far as it goes;" without an 
 ark or a fishing-boat, which might then " dimly shadow forth 
 a burial and a resurrection;" without any element of deep 
 emotion, which then might be converted into " an overflow- 
 ing torrent;" without mental solicitude, which then might 
 be made "a burden to sink in deep waters;" without any 
 help whereby a figure or a picture can be wrought out, this 
 "baptisma confessionis" cannot but be a stumbling-block 
 to the theory. " Confession," through the influence of blood- 
 drops from the cross, baptizes the penitent sinner and fits 
 him for Paradise ! 
 
 BAPTISMS OF FIKE. 
 
 BAPTISM BY THE FLAMING SWORD. 
 
 Genesis 3 : 24. 
 
 " So he drove out the man : And he placed at the east of the 
 garden of Eden, cherubims and a flaming sword, which turned 
 every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 "Non unum est baptisma: unum est quod hie tradit Ecclesia, 
 per aquam et Spiritum Sanctum quo necesse est baptizari cate- 
 chumenos. Est et aliud baptisma, de quo dicit Dominus Jesus: 
 ' Baptisma habeo baptizari, quod nos nescitis,' (Luke 12 : 10.) Et 
 utique jam baptizatus in Jordane fuerat, sicut superiora de- 
 clarant; sed sit hoc baptismum passionis, quo etiam sanguine suo 
 anusquisque mundatur. 
 
 "Est etiam baptismum in paradisi vestibulo, quod antea non 
 
BAPTISM BY FIRE. 223 
 
 erat: sed posteaquam peccator exclusus est, ccepit esse romphgea 
 ignea, quam posuit Deiis, quse antea non erat, quando peccatum 
 non erat. 
 
 " Culpa coepit, et baptismum coepit : quo purificentur, qui in 
 paradisum redire cupiebant, ut regressi dicerent : ' Transivimus 
 per ignem et aquam.' (Ps. 66 : 12.) Hie per aquam, illic per 
 ignem. Per aquam, ut abluantur peccata : per ignem ut exu- 
 rantur. . . . 
 
 " Quis est qui in hoc igne baptizat? . . . Ille de quo Johannes 
 ait : ' Ipse vos baptizabit in Spiritu sancto et igne.' . . . Veniet 
 ergo Baptista Magnus, sic enim eum nomino quomodo nominavit 
 Grabi'iel dicens, (Luc. 1:32,) 'Hie erit Magnus,' videbit multos 
 ante paradisi stantes vestibulum, movebit rompbseam versati- 
 lem, dicet iis qui a dextris sunt, non habentibus gravia peccata: 
 'Intrate qui prsesumitis, qui ignem non timetis.' . . . Intrate in 
 requiem meam ; ut unusquisque nostrum ustus romphoea ilia 
 flammea, non exustus, introgressus in illam paradisi amoeni- 
 tatem, gratias agat Domino suo, dicens: 'Induxisti nos in re- 
 frigerium.' " (Ps. 66 : 12.) 
 
 " Baptism is not one : that is one kind which the Church gives 
 by water and the Holy Spirit, wherewith it is necessary that 
 catechumens be baptized. 
 
 "And that is another Baptism, of which the Lord Jesus says: 
 * I have a baptism to be baptized with, which ye know not.'. 
 (Luke 12 : 10.) And as he had already been baptized in Jordan, 
 as previously stated, this must be the Baptism of Passion by 
 which, through his blood, every one of us must be cleansed. 
 
 " There is, also, a baptism at the entrance of Paradise which 
 formerly did not exist; but after the transgressor was excluded, 
 the flaming sword began to be, which God established, which 
 was not, before, when sin was not. Sin began and baptism 
 began; by which they might be purified who desired to return, 
 that having returned they might say: ' We have passed over by 
 fire and water.' (Ps. 66: 12.) Here by water, there by fire. By 
 water, that sins may be washed away; by fire, that they may be 
 consumed. . . . 
 
 "Who is it that baptizes by this fire? . . . He of whom John 
 says, ' He shall baptize with the Holy Spirit and fire.' . . . 
 Then shall come the Great Baptizer, (for so I call him as Gabriel 
 called him, saying, (Luke 1 : 32,) ' He shall be Great,') he will 
 
224 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 see many standing before the entrance of Paradise, he will wave 
 the sword turning every way. He will say to those on the right 
 hand, not having weighty sins, 'Enter ye, who are of good 
 courage, who, fear not the fire.' . . . 
 
 "Enter into my kingdom: So every one of us burned (puri- 
 fied) by that sword, not consumed, having entered into the 
 delights of Paradise, may give thanks to his Lord, saying, (Ps. 
 66:12,) ^ Thou hast brought us into rest.'" — Ambrose, ii, 1227, 
 1228. 
 
 "Statuit igneam romphceam, et cherubim custodire viam ligni 
 vitse. . . . Audi Salvatorem ratione ignis et ferri in duobus locis 
 significantem. In alio loco ait: ^ Non veni mittere pacem super 
 terram, sed gladium.' In alio vero : ' Ignem veni mittere super ter- 
 ram, et utinam jam ardeat.' Igitur defert utrumque Salvator, gla- 
 dium et ignem, et baptizat qu^ non potuerunt Spiritus Sancti 
 purificatione purgari." 
 
 " He places a flaming sword and cherubim to guard the way 
 of the tree of life. And as if a sword, sharp and hot, be struck 
 against the body, it causes double pain, of burning and of cut- 
 ting, so, also, the sword which is'mentioned as placed as a guard 
 of Paradise, produces double torment, it burns and it cuts. Stu- 
 dents of the medical art say that some diseases require not only 
 the cutting of the knife, but, also, burning. Cancers require 
 that the putrid flesh shall be cut out and their roots burned. 
 Dost thou think that our cancer, as I may call it, has a like 
 viciousness, so that neither the mere sharpness of the knife nor 
 the mere burning of fire can suflBce, but both must be applied, 
 that it may be both burned and cut ? Hear the Saviour show- 
 ing the use of fire and knife, in two passages: In one place he 
 says : ' I have not come to send peace on the earth hut a sivord.' But 
 in another place he says: 'I have come to send fire upon the 
 earth, and I wish it were already kindled.' Therefore the 
 Saviour brings both, sword and fire, and baptizes those things 
 WHICH could not be purged by the purification of the Holy 
 Spirit." — Origen (translated by Jerome), iii, 704. 
 
 Sh de Tzwq kitaviXdTjq elz rbv Tzapddziaov, [xij (7(ppayLadsiq ru) (iaizTiffiiazi] 
 "H oox «I<5ai?, on <pXuy{v7j /Sofiyaia riraxrac ipokdaaeiv ttjv 68ov too ^ulou 
 
 "But how canst thou come back again into Paradise, not 
 being sealed by baptism? Dost thou not know that the flam- 
 
BAPTISM BY FIRE. 225 
 
 ing sword has been set to guard the way of the tree of life, to 
 the unbelieving terrible and consuming, but, to the believing, 
 easy of approach, and pleasantly shining?" — Basil, iii, 428. 
 
 AMBROSE. 
 
 The exposition, by Ambrose, of the import of baptism in 
 genera], and as bearing on this passage in particular, is very 
 explicit, and very far removed from the Baptist conception 
 of what is essential to a baptism. 
 
 ^^ Baptism is iwi one." In absolute contradiction of the 
 assertion of this eminent writer, the theory declares that 
 bajjtism is one. When the theorists take this position, they 
 me^m to say that baptism is a fixed quantity. Some say that 
 the "quantity" consists in the form of an act, in the most 
 marvellous disregard of facts. Others say the form of the 
 act may vary, but a covering of the object must not vary. 
 It is farther affirmed that this unity is such an absolute ne- 
 cessity, that in application to things not physical, and where 
 neither form of act nor covering can exist, in fact, yet there 
 must be a creation, by the force of imagination, of the one 
 or the other, according as this or that class of theorists may 
 attempt to defend the caise. Water, wine, oil, milk, blood, 
 marsh mud, the receiving elements, may vary; but the bap- 
 tism, the dipping or the covering, cannot vary. Baptism is 
 one. " It is mode, and nothing but mode." 
 
 If the idea of baptism is exhausted by the performance of 
 a modal act, then no argument is needed to prove that " bap- 
 tism is one." It is a self-evident proposition. Or, if the idea 
 of baptism consists in a modal covering, departure from which 
 is as destructive as the dashing of a crystal vase against a 
 flinty rock, then argument is at an end, and " baptism is 
 one." I say nothing, now, about the difficulty which these 
 parties to the unity have among themselves in determining 
 what the unit is ; it is enough, at present, to turn the case 
 over to Ambrose, who says: "Baptism is not one." But if 
 it be "wo^ one," then it 18 7iot a modal act, for that, as the 
 theory claims, must ever be "one;" nor is it a modal cover- 
 ing, for that, too, as the theorj^ claims, must ever be " one." 
 
 15 
 
226 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Whatever baptism may be, if Ambrose's decision is worth 
 anything, this Janus-faced theory is worth nothing. 
 
 Lest an}' one should have doubts as to the extent of the 
 repudiation 'of this "oneness," I would call to mind a pre- 
 vious declaration by this same writer: '^ Malta sunt gejiera 
 baptismatum." The theory refuses to give baptism the 
 dignity of a species. It cuts it down to a severe indkidualism. 
 It is like nothing but itself; and when it becomes like any- 
 thing else, it ceases to be itself. " It is dip^ and nothing but dip, 
 through all Greek literature." ISTow, Ambrose not merely 
 rejects the notion that baptism is a thing simple and indivis- 
 ible, always and everywhere the same, but he refuses to 
 accept the broader idea of species with its individual peculi- 
 arities; he will not allow even the limitation which belongs 
 to genus and its varying species; he insists that the " baptis- 
 mata " rise up to the elevation of a class, and that, too, of 
 such a breadth as to include " midta genera." 
 
 Were ever opposing views more thoroughly, more broadly, 
 and more universally contradictory than those of the theor- 
 ists, and this Patrist, as to the nature of baptism ? 
 
 We have had already enough of facts before us to show 
 which now is right. We have seen that "genus" of bap- 
 tisms, which pertains to physics, including various differen- 
 tial species, such as Btones, metals, coasts, uninfluenced by 
 baptism ; a bag of salt, a ship, a human being, influenced by 
 baptism; and we have seen that "genus" of baptisms, taking 
 in the intellect, and exhibited in varying " species," such as 
 drunkenness, somnolence, feeble-mindedness, &c., &c. And 
 yet another "genus," embracing the religious element, is now 
 passing before us, revealing its varied " species " of ceremonial 
 purifications, with all the varieties of sp>rinJdings (water, blood, 
 ash.es), and of washings (body, feet, hands); and of spiritual pu- 
 rifications, mediate (water imbued with divine power, martyr 
 blood, flaming sword), and immediate, (Holy Spirit.) 
 
 These are only some of the "Multa genera baptismatum" 
 which make up that wide " Class," characterized by thorough 
 change ofccndition. They are sufficient to sustain the position, 
 "Baptism is not one," and to show that its contradictory 
 
BAPTISM BY FIRE. 227 
 
 "Baptism is one," is a position neither proven nor prova- 
 ble. Classic Baptism is right when it says, "Baptism is a 
 myriad-sided word." 
 
 ^'Baptism by water and the Holy Spirit.'^ Ambrose pro- 
 ceeds to cite some particular kinds of baptism, in order to 
 sustain his assertion that "Baptism is not one." I do not 
 enter into a discussion of this baptism. It is not within my 
 present plan so to do. I only observe, as to its distinctive 
 character: 1. It does not belong to the class of mere symbol 
 baptisms; it effects a spiritual puriticatiou. 2. Whatever 
 may have been the manner of using the water, its position 
 in the baptism is that of agency. The ''''power'' to effect the 
 baptism is with the water. It is not a recipient element. 
 This is the Patristic view. 
 
 " Baptisma passionis." The baptism of passion, or of cruci- 
 fixion, experienced by our adorable Lord and Saviour Jesus 
 Christ, is declared by Ambrose to be another kind of bap- 
 tism from that just mentioned, namely, Baptism by water 
 and the Holy Spirit. We have thus specific examples fur- 
 nished to illustrate the general statement, "Baptism is not 
 one." What, now, is the unity, or what are the unities, 
 which make both baptisms; and what the diversity or diver- 
 sities which make them baptisms not of the same kind ? 
 
 1. As to the forms of act. In the one case, it is applying 
 water to the body in varying forms, and "the operation" of 
 the Holy Spirit on the soul; in the other case, it is striking 
 with a hammer and thrusting with a spear. 2. As to the agen- 
 cies. In the former case it is water impregnated with a di- 
 vine power, in the latter case it is the agonies of the cross. 
 3. As to the results. In the first case there is a wetting of fehe 
 bod}' and (supposedly) a purification of the soul; in the last 
 case there is a penal death, " the just for the unjust." There 
 is no unity in the forms of the act. none in the nature of the 
 agency, none in the characters of the result. There is neither 
 a dipping nor a covering to be found whereby they can be 
 interlinked. Why then have they the common name of bap- 
 tism ? I answer, because a baptism is never dependent upon 
 any specific form of action, upon any specific nature in the 
 
228 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 instrumentality, or upon any specific character in the result; 
 but is the production of any act, or of any agency, which is 
 capable of thoroughly changing the condition of its object. 
 Friends and rejecters of the dipping theory will alike ad- 
 mit, that the sinner baptized with water impregnated with 
 divine influence, had (according to the Patristic faith) there- 
 by his moral condition thoroughly changed. And all will, 
 equally, acknowledge that the "baptism of passion" thor- 
 oughly changed the condition of the Sufferer in his relations 
 to the law, having forever satisfied its claims; and his rela- 
 tions to his people, being now and thus, now in fact, thus 
 "from the foundation of the world," the slain Lamb of God, 
 able to take away their sins; as well as his own personal 
 condition, changing his condition of life into a condition of 
 death, on which changed condition all else hung suspended. 
 By the power of this central truth, we fling ofi' those alien 
 elements, "dipping" and "covering," while we bring into 
 order and harmony all those multiplied diversities which 
 enter into the " multa genera baptismaium." 
 
 The theory has ever stumbled at the unity and charity in- 
 culcated by the cross, and has thus been deservedly " broken ;" 
 the baptism of the cross now falls upon it, and it is "ground 
 to powder." And so perish, speedily, all error which sepa- 
 rates the people of God! 
 
 Before leaving this case of baptism, I would call attention 
 to the form and force of the phrase "Baptisms passionis." 
 What is the grammatical and logical relation between these 
 two words? Very few, perhaps none, will differ in their 
 answer to this question. For that very reason it is desirable 
 to raise it now^ as we shall meet with it hereafter, when out- 
 side influences may cause more embarrassment in its deter- 
 mination. 
 
 The only point to be settled, is the character of the geni- 
 tive. Is it subjective or objective f Is the baptism produced 
 by "passion," as its source, or has baptism "passion" for 
 its end ? If there should be any hesitancy in auswering this 
 inquiry, aid may, perhaps, be found in referring to a similar 
 phrase, which has already been before us: "Baptisma con- 
 
BAPTISM BY THE FLAMING SWORD. 229 
 
 fessionis." None, I presume, will regard "confession" as 
 the end of Martyr baptism; but all will say, Martyrdom pro- 
 ceeds from " confession." In other words, the case is a geni- 
 tive subjective, and not objeciive. The similar phrase, "Bap- 
 tisraa passionis," should, unquestionably, be determined in 
 the same manner. The atoning sorrows of the blessed Re- 
 deemer on the cross, were the source whence his baptism 
 came, not the end to which it tended. " Passion " baptized 
 the atoning Redeemer into death. 
 
 I pass oyer this amazing baptism, now, as lightly as its 
 presentation by Ambrose will allow. Its consideration will 
 demand a most central position when we come to speak of 
 Christian Baptism. 
 
 Baptism of the Flaming Sword. — A third baptism, differing 
 from the other two, is adduced to sustain the same general 
 position, "Baptism is not one." This is a baptism which 
 takes place at the gates of Paradise. 
 
 When Aaron was baptized by Moses at the door of the 
 congregation. Dr. Carson insisted that it must be by im- 
 mersion. If Ambrose had merely said : " There is, also, a 
 baptism at the entrance of Paradise," or, if those words only 
 had come down to us without any explanation as to the quo 
 modo of the baptism, this thrice honest believer in dipping 
 would have gone to the stake sooner than he would have 
 admitted, that there was or could be any other than a dip- 
 ping baptism. He would have asked, in triumph, "Is there 
 not a river flowing in the Paradise of God ? And if one 
 be not enough, where are the Pison, and the Gihon, and 
 the Hiddekel, and the Euphrates?" Fortunately, however, 
 more has been told us concerning it; and it appears that 
 there was no dipping, no covering, no water, in the transac- 
 tion. The baptism was by a '■'■ Flaming Sword." 
 
 Had the statement been merely, that the baptism was 
 by fire, all that entered Paradise would have been very 
 promptly dipped into the fire; but, alas ! the statement is 
 "a her}' sword;" and how shall the seekers of Paradise be 
 dipped into a sword? I am sure I cannot tell; but I am 
 just as sure that the theory will cut out, to order, an ex- 
 
230 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 planation so plain that "any child can see it;" and if, per- 
 chance, any man should fail to do so, it must be because "he 
 has no soul for rhetoric." Perhaps the device will be, that 
 the strokes' of the sword, descending and ascending, (like 
 the flooding and the ebbing tide,) shall " beautifully repre- 
 sent « c/?2>pz??^ ;" while in "turning every way," its strokes 
 come down before, behind, right, left, above, betoken a 
 rushing torrent and a covering flood; and what could be 
 more plain than that, (as the sword is the image of death, 
 and burial is involved in death, while entering Paradise is 
 proof of a resurrection,) we have "death, burial, and resur- 
 rection" as well as a dipping and a covering? Who will 
 not justify the theorist in saying, (while standing at the gates 
 of Paradise with the whole truth of baptism made luminous 
 by "the Flaming Sword,") that he who will not accept its 
 strokes for " dipping," its flashes for " covering," its emblem- 
 atic character for "death and burial," and the Paradise it 
 guards for "resurrection," "compels our charity to struggle 
 against the conviction which forces itself upon us, that upon 
 this subject it is not light that is most wanted, but religious 
 honesty.'^ (Carson, xxxvii.) 
 
 Some may hesitate to receive these fruits of a warm imagi- 
 nation because they leave out of view the baptism of Am- 
 brose — the eradication of sin which prepares for entrance 
 through the gate into Paradise; and because they have failed 
 to show how the "dippings" of a swordblade would fit for 
 the kiugdom of heaven ; to do which thing this baptism was 
 Patristically got up. 
 
 Others may object, that the exposition does not tally with 
 the illustration given by Origen of the cancer, with the knife 
 and the cautery burning its roots. This suits well with the 
 idea of a baptism which effectually purifies the soul; but not 
 so well with a water dipping or with a flood covering. All 
 this may be true; but then, Ambrose and Origen may not 
 know what a baptism is, (not having yet gone to school at 
 Tubbermore;) or, they may not have known what sort of 
 baptism they had in their own minds, and so may have 
 blundered in its explication. At any rate there is so much 
 
BAPTISM BY THE FLAMING SWORD. 231 
 
 of simplicity and good sense in the death, burial, and resur- 
 rection of IlToah in the ark, of Israel in the dried-up sea, and 
 of the Apostles iu the sound like wind, that we can feel little 
 disposition to yield anything to these Patrists, as against 
 death, burial, and resurrection in the Flaming Sword! 
 
 In any case, however, there is much to justify the state- 
 ment, that as a baptism it is not quite like either of the other 
 two. And it is hard to resist the conclusion, that the theory 
 is certainly scorched, if not burned up, by contact with the 
 Flaming Sword. 
 
 I need hardly say, that inasmuch as the Patrists attribute 
 to the sword, in its cutting character and in its liery element, 
 a doubly purifying power, fully competent under divine con- 
 trol to accomplish its mission — thoroughly to change the 
 condition of those seeking admission into Paradise — it meets, 
 in the most perfect manner, that which we claim to be the 
 true and only essential characteristic of a baptism. 
 
 " The Great Baptizer." 
 
 Ijfot the least important part of this interpretation relates 
 to the baptizer at the gates of Paradise. This is of so much 
 importance that Ambrose, himself, raises the question : 
 "Who is it that baptizes by this fire?" And he gives the 
 answer: "He of whom John said, 'He shall baptize by the 
 Holy Ghost and by fire.' " To this person is given the title of 
 "the Great Baptizer." Now the question arises, Why was 
 the Lord Jesus Christ called " the Great Baptizer?" We pro- 
 pound this question to the theorists and await their answer. 
 
 Is it replied by some one more zealous than thoughtful, 
 "You must not obscure the truth by using untranslated 
 words. He is called ' the Great Dipper,' because he dipped 
 so many into the water." To such speech enough of his 
 dipping friends will say : "Don't speak so fast; you blunder; 
 Christ never dipped into water." He might, however, re- 
 spond : " I thought that baptize always meant to dip, and if 
 he is 'the Great Dipper' and did not dip mio water, what 
 did he dip into ?" "Well, perhaps it means. He dipped into 
 the Holy Ghost and into fire." Here let me interpose a word 
 
232 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 and say, 1. This latter baptism cannot now be discussed on 
 its merits, because out of place. 2. The answer, as to the 
 reason of this title, must be such as will meet the views of 
 him who gives the title, not of him "who undertakes to ex- 
 pound it. And the reason assigned will not answer; for 
 Ambrose no more believed that the Lord Jesus dipped men 
 into the Holy Ghost and into fire, than he believed that he 
 dipped them into water. It is no sentiment of the Patrists, 
 that the Holy Ghost is a receiving element into which men 
 are to be dipped whether literally or figuratively; on the con- 
 trary, He is always represented as an agent operating on the 
 soul and so baptizing it. It is the purest absurdity to attribute 
 to Ambrose the giving of a title grounded on the abundant 
 doing of that which he did not believe was ever done at all. 
 And as for " dipping into fire," it may be observed, 1. The 
 use of the preposition m by no means determines any such 
 idea; for it is most freely used in Patristic writings with the 
 instrument. 2. The instrument is used subsequently with- 
 out an}^ preposition. 3. The fire, here, was not of a nature 
 to allow of a dipping into it. 4, It is expressly stated that 
 the act accomplishing the baptism was not a dipping into the 
 flaming sword, but by waving it. Let it be remembered, 
 that we are interpreting an expression not of somebody else 
 taken up by Ambrose, and which has a value extrinsic to 
 him, but an expression which originates with himself; and 
 which, consequently, must be interpreted by his own senti- 
 ments as bearing upon it. And in view of them we say, 
 the title "Great Dipper" never originated from any notion 
 that the Lord Jesus dipped into fire. But supposing that 
 there was such a phrase as "dipping into the Holy Ghost," 
 which there is not, and "dipping into fire," which there is 
 not, still every one not demented must admit that there is, in 
 fact, no dipping in such expressions. Plere, then, arises the 
 question. How could the title of a "Dipper" be taken out of 
 phrases in which no dipping exists, in fact, to be conferred 
 on one Avho never dips ? Is not the whole thing, (as is usual 
 with such explanations under the theory,) full, from first to 
 last, of conceptions untenable and unreasonable? 
 
BAPTISM BY THE FLAMING SWORD. 233 
 
 But this title, "the Great Baptizer," given bj Ambrose 
 to the Lord Jesus Christ means something, nay, must mean 
 very much. What is it? If some votary of the wine cup 
 were to call Bacchus "the Great Baptizer," would not the 
 interpretation "Great Dipper'^ be regarded as a great joke? 
 And would not " Great coverer over" prove them tipsy who 
 gave such title ? Could it mean anything else, in such rela- 
 tion, than ^^ the Great drunkard maker?" Would not every 
 native-born Greek so understand it? 
 
 But what this title means as applied to the Lord Jesus 
 Christ, (now given for the first time and, so far as I remem- 
 ber, never employed but on this occasion,) we must learn 
 from the character of him who bears it, and from the cir- 
 cumstances and tenor of the context out of which it origi- 
 nates. It would be most irrational to suppose otherwise, 
 as it would be irrational- to introduce into the text, to con- 
 trol the interpretation, any other element than that which 
 is already there. Neither water nor wine, not water any 
 more than wine, has any place in the interpretation. 
 
 What is the ruling thought of the passage? Is it not 
 purification ? Is not purification inseparable from Paradise ? 
 Is not " the flaming sword" placed at the gateway to prevent 
 the introduction of impurity ? Is not " the sword and the fire" 
 represented as possessed of purifying power ? Are not souls 
 represented as seeking to enter Paradise, and yet " with 
 some lighter sins" which still require purification? Is not 
 the Lord Jesus, here and everywhere in connection with 
 baptism, represented as a Purifier? Does he not take the 
 flaming sword for the purpose of purifjdng completely, those 
 "on his right hand?" Does he not do it, and in so doing, 
 give them welcome into that Paradise within which " nothing 
 that defileth" can enter? And is he not, in view of all this, 
 and because of all this, called " the Great Baptizer?" The 
 interpretation, I repeat, must be gathered from the passage. 
 In that passage there is not the remotest hint of a dipping 
 or a covering; and to introduce them as expounding ele- 
 ments is "a folly to be punished by the judges." It might 
 as well be said, that nobility and a title taken from the field 
 
234 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 of battle and conferred upon a victorious soldier, must be 
 expounded by reasons sought in the four corners of the 
 earth and not in that hardfought field — its prisoners taken, 
 its cannon captured, opposing standards stricken down — 
 as to say that the title given by Ambrose, in view of the 
 great work accomplished on earth and at the gates of Para- 
 dise, was not to be expounded by that work. Thus ex- 
 pounded, "the Great Baptizer" can mean nothing but "the 
 Great Purifier," and we ofier it to Dr. Carson as an addi- 
 tional case where it cannot mean the Great Dipper ! 
 
 I say Dipper and not Immerser, because I enter an impera- 
 tive denial of the right of any under the dipping theory to 
 make use of immerse or of any of its derivatives, so long as 
 they identify dip and ^ar.ri^u). When they reject this error 
 we will cheerfully give them the benefit of it, and will hold 
 them to other responsibilities. 
 
 In the meanwhile we must affirm, that the two words, dip 
 and immerse, difier essentially. Their power differs widely, 
 deeply, universally; their relations to words and thoughts 
 differ; their development, from primary thought, exhibits 
 the same continued and magnified difference. If these state- 
 ments are not true, let their error be shown. If they are 
 not disproved, is it rational to suppose that, in a discussion 
 turning on these differences, these terms can be allowed to 
 be tossed about, at will, as may suit the pleasure or ends of 
 one of the parties? If the friends of the theory have grown 
 distrustful of dip, and think that immerse can do them more 
 valiant service, let them frankly confess their change of 
 ground, and stick to it with all its consequences, and no one 
 will impose upon them their once trusted, but, at length, 
 discarded favorite. But until this is done, we cannot allow 
 a white horse and a black horse to be imposed upon us as 
 matches. 
 
 ORIGEN. 
 
 What does the Great Baptizer baptize f 
 
 When the theorists have been hard pressed with the evi- 
 dence against the dippings of the priests in Judaic baptisms, 
 
BAPTISM BY THE FLAMING SWORD. 235 
 
 they have answered: "Parts of the sacrificial victims, or the 
 utensils, may have been dipped, and such dippings would 
 account for its being said that there were baptisms in the 
 temple service." Dr. Halley says that he is not satisfied 
 with the fitness of this answer, but as he cannot disprove 
 the existence of such dippings, or demonstrate their incon- 
 gruity with the baptisms designed, he will not press the 
 argument. 
 
 This attempt to save the theory in the face of condemning 
 facts, by the supposition of some rhetorical speech, or extra- 
 ordinarj^ figure, or some possible fact, is characteristic of the 
 believers in "dipping, and nothing but dipping." Every 
 one who gives attention to the subject will, at once, be aware 
 what facilities are at hand, by large drafts on rhetoric, figure, 
 imagination, and the rich storehouse of possibilities, for 
 throwing back a secondary meaning on the primary, by one 
 who is disposed, at all hazards, to reject a secondary sense. 
 To demonstrate the impossibility of the primary sense against 
 all these, lawful and unlawful modifying and coloring ap- 
 pliances, so as to compel the assent of a determined and 
 thoroughly committed opponent, is a difficult if not imprac- 
 ticable task. The theorists take this double position: 1. No 
 second meaning to ^anTlZio^ dip and nothing but dip. 2. JSTo 
 surrender, except to blank impossibility of such meaning, 
 after the exhaustion of all conceivable opposing appliances. 
 
 A rule in itself may not be an improper one, but the inter- 
 pretation of evidence under it may be very exceptionable. 
 Dr. Carson, who lays down this law for the opponents of 
 the theory, refuses to govern his own action hy the inter- 
 pretation of the law which he would bind on others. In 
 adducing evidence for a secondary meaning to /Jajrrw, there 
 is not a case brought forward in proof, which could endure 
 a single stroke from the machinery which he gets up to batter 
 down, or undermine, or overtop, or circumvent, or blow up, 
 whatever sustains a secondary meaning of ^anri'^u). 
 
 I make no protest against the rule; but I do protest against 
 an insane judgment of the rule, or of evidence under the rule. 
 
 Proof, to the full of all rational requirement, under the 
 
236 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 rule has already been repeatedly presented. We have such 
 testimony renewedly furnished by the extract from Origen, 
 and which I now present ; "Igitur defert utrumque Salvator, 
 gladium et ignem, et baptizat qu^ non potuerunt Spiritus 
 Sancti puriiicatione purgari." — " Therefore, the Saviour 
 brings forth both the sword and the hre, and baptizes what 
 [defilements, faults, sins) could not be purged by the purifica- 
 tion of the Holy Spirit." 
 
 The argument from this passage is: 1. "The purification 
 of the Holy Spirit" is, in Patristic conception, baptism bi/ 
 water impregnated with the quality of the Holy Spirit; and 
 the object of this baptism, as stated, is to baptize the pol- 
 lutions of the soul; therefore baptize cannot mean to dip, 
 because "pollutions" cannot be dipped. But, no doubt, this 
 argument, though clear as the sun, will be "pufi'ed at," on 
 the ground of the use of the phrase "purification of the 
 Holy Spirit," being used instead of the word baptize. Well, 
 then, as I do not believe in charging people with " wanting 
 Christian honesty more than wanting light," (though they may 
 appear to me to be madly set upon a theory,) we will pass 
 out of the light of one sun into the light of seven suns. 
 
 2. Origen, through his translator Jerome, both of unim- 
 peachable authority, gives us in the former part of the sen- 
 tence, totidem Uteris, the very word — baptizat. The objection, 
 then, on the ground of the absence of the word, is at an end. 
 Now, as to the meaning in which the word is used. What 
 was baptized? Priests, Levites, disciples? No. "Shoulckrs, 
 breasts, legs of sacrificial victims?" No. "Basins, pots, uten- 
 sils of any kind?" No. What then? Defilements, faidts, sins, 
 "which could not be purged by the purification b^^ the Holy 
 Spirit." Now test the primary meaning attributed to iSanriZw, 
 (to dip,) by the case, and we have : " Therefore the Saviour 
 brings forth both sword and fire, and dips what {defilements, 
 faults, sins) could not be purged by the purification of the 
 Holy Spirit." 
 
 Is it a possibility, or an impossibility, to dip " defilements, 
 faults, and sins?" Is it a possibility, or an impossibility, to 
 dip such things by "sword and fire?" 
 
BAPTISM BY THE FLAMING SWORD. 237 
 
 If any friend of the theory in Europe, Asia, Africa, or 
 America, (whom a jury under a writ de lunaiico shall pro- 
 nounce sane), will declare that it is possible " to dip defile- 
 ments, faults, and sins," then I will give up the case, and 
 pray that a like writ be taken out for myself; for if such a 
 one be not demented, I must be. The passage furnishes 
 an experimentum crucis for the theory. If Origen (the most 
 learned and the most voluminous Greek writer of his day,) 
 understood Greek; if Jerome (thoroughly taught in the 
 Greek Classics before he became a Christian,) understood 
 Greek; if these most learned men had any just understanding 
 of what they themselves wrote; then, the theory is brought 
 face to face with a case of usage in which the meaning " to 
 dip," is an absolute impossibility. 
 
 That the force of this evidence may be felt, if possible, 
 yet more deeplj'-, I will quote an analogous case adduced by 
 President Halley, (Sacraments, i, 454,) as the highest possible 
 proof to determine a secondary meaning for ISdnzio. 
 
 "Although Dr. Carson has said enough to satisfy his 
 brethren that ^oltztoj has to dye as a secondary meaning, he 
 has not, I think, produced the most decisive evidence which 
 the idiom of the language supplies. The best proof of a com- 
 plete change of the meaning, is a corresponding change of the syn- 
 tax accommodating itself to the deflection of sense. ... In the 
 phrases to dip the wool, and to stain the m^ooI, the syntax is 
 the same. But if the syntax is so varied as to make not the 
 thing colored, but the color itself, the object of the verb, — as 
 when we say to dye a pui^le, — the secondary sense has then 
 renounced all dependence upon the primary, and established 
 itself by a new law of syntax, enacted by usage to secure its 
 undisturbed possession. . . . This is illustrated by the pas- 
 sage idv ri Tii; aXXa -/^ptoixara ^OTcrrj, idv ri xai raura. * ^iV^hether any 
 
 one dye other colors or these also.' Here XP^I^^ has gained 
 in the syntax the place of the material subjected to the pro- 
 cess; and therefore pleads a law of language that ^anTut in 
 the passage does not, and cannot mean to dip, as the color 
 cannot bo dipped, whatever may be done with the wool. 
 Another case is found in Lucian [Cynic, p. 1106), olrrjvr.op- 
 
238 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 <pi)pw> ISdTTTovTsz, 'those dj'eing the purple.' This syntax I hold 
 to be demonstrative of a secondaiy meaning." 
 
 Professor Wilson, Royal College, Belfast, speaking of this 
 principle and its value as testimony to a secondary mean- 
 ing, says : " That /5a-Tw denotes to dye, without regard to 
 mode, and even where immersion is in terms excluded, the 
 preceding, examples place beyond the pale of candid dispu- 
 tation. There remains, however, an additional element of 
 proof, which, if not more convincing in its nature, is at least 
 calculated to afibrd higher gratification to the mind of the 
 true philologist. We allude to the interesting fact, that the 
 secondary meaning, instead of hanging loosely on the out- 
 skirts of clauses and sentences, has seized upon their most 
 intimate connections, and entered deeply into the structural 
 fabric of the Greek language. As Dr. Halley, so far as we 
 are aware, was the first to direct public attention to the ex- 
 istence and value of this branch of evidence, we shall present 
 in his own words the statement and illustration of its char- 
 acter." 
 
 We have here the testimony of two most competent wit- 
 nesses to the principle, that a radical change in the syntax 
 is the highest proof of a radical change in the meaning of 
 the word. This principle was not enunciated to meet a 
 controversial exigency. The Baptists had already accepted 
 a secondary meaning to par.ru). It may, therefore, be re- 
 ceived without suspicion, and acknowledged as a universal 
 principle ingrained in the elements of language. 
 
 We can say, dip wool, but we cannot say, dip purple, and 
 use the verb in the same sense in both cases; for " purple" 
 is of such a nature as to be insusceptible of the action of 
 which " wool" is the object. The syntax, therefore, is proof 
 of a change of meaning. Wool may be dipped; purple can, 
 only, be dyed. 
 
 So we may say, dip (supposing this to be, as claimed, the 
 meaning of [ianTiZiu) the sinner; but we cannot say, dip the 
 sin, and use the word in the same sense, because "sin," by 
 its nature, does not admit of being dipped. But Origen does 
 say that the Lord Jesus dips (baptizes) sins, (represented 
 
BAPTISM BY A COAL OP FIRE. 239 
 
 in "qu83"); it follows, therefore, by a necessity of the laws 
 of language, that he uses the verb in such case with a sec- 
 ondary meaning. Sins may he purged; they cannot be dip- 
 ped. If proof needed to be heaped on proof, it would be 
 found in the means used for this dipping by the Great Bap- 
 tizer; " sword and fire" can no more dip, than " sins" can be 
 dipped by them. " Sword and fire" can purge; sins can be 
 purged; the Great Baptizer does purge; and ^ami'^u) means 
 
 TO PURGE. 
 
 The theory perishes by the Flaming Sword in the hands 
 of the True as well as " the Great Baptist." 
 
 BAPTISM BY A COAL OP FIKB. 
 Isaiah 6 : 6-7. 
 
 "Then said I, Woe is me ! for I am undone; because I am a 
 man of unclean lips and I dwell in the midst of a people of un- 
 clean lips: for mine eyes have seen the King, the Lord of hosts. 
 
 "Then flew one of the Seraphim unto me, having a live coal 
 in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from off the 
 altar : 
 
 "And he laid it upon my mouth and said, Lo, this hath 
 touched thy lips ; and thine iniquity is taken away, and thy sin 
 is purged." 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 "Lege mandata Legis, et invenies scriptum : Quia vivens si 
 mortuum contigerit, inquinatur (Numb. 19 : 11). . . . Indigemus 
 ergo purgatione, quia tetigimus mortuos (Numb. 19 : 1). , . . 
 Omnes conligimus mortuum. Quis enim gloriabitur castum se 
 habere cor, aut quis audebit dicere mundum se a peecatis ? Sit 
 aliquis fortassc qui in sermone non deliquerit .... tamen in 
 medio peccatorum versatur, necesse habet etiam ipse purificari. 
 Unde Esaias, cum dixisset (6 : 5-7), statim descendit unum de 
 Seraphim, et contigit labia ejus carbone, et immunda ejus labia 
 mundaret. 
 
 " 14. Non unum est baptismum." 
 
 " Eead the commandments of the Law, and you will find it 
 written, — Whosoever shall touch the dead, becomes defiled (Numb. 
 
240 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 19 : 11). . . . Therefore we need purgation, because we have 
 touched the dead (Numb. 19 : 1). . . . We all touch the dead. 
 For who will boast that he keeps his heart pure, or who will 
 dare to say that he is clean from sins ? There may be some 
 one, possibly, who has not sinned in word, although such a 
 one is rare, of whom God may say, as of holy Job: He has not 
 sinned with his lips (Job 22 : 10) ; however, he could not always 
 have the thoughts of his heart pure, the devil injects himself 
 into the heart of man. Whoever keeps constant and vigilant 
 guard over his heart, nevertheless lives in the midst of sinners, 
 and even he has need to be purified. Hence Esaias, when he 
 had said, (6 : 5-7,) immediately one of the Seraphim came down 
 and touched his lips with a coal, and cleansed his unclean lips. 
 "14. Baptism is not one." — Ambrose, ii, 1126, 1127. 
 
 "Et sumet plenum batillum caibonibus ignis de altari, quod 
 est contra Dominum (Leviticus 16 : 12). Legimus et in Isaia, 
 quia igne purgatur propheta per unum ex Seraphim, quod mis- 
 sum est ad eum, cum accepit forcipe carbonem unum ex his qui 
 erant super altare, et contigit labia prophetse, et dixit: 'jEcce 
 absiuli iniquitates tuas.' Mihi videntur mystica hsec esse, et hoc 
 indicare, quod unicuique secundum id quod peccat, si dignum 
 fuerit purificari eum, inferantur carbones membris ejus. Nam 
 quoniam dicit propheta hie: ^ Imtnunda labia habeo, in medio 
 quoque popidi immunda labia habentis habito,' idcirco carbo for- 
 cipe assumptus a Seraphim, labia ejus mundat, qui bus soils se 
 mundum non esse profitetur. . . . Nos autem, si redeat unus- 
 quisque ad conscientiam suam, nescio si possumus aliquod mem- 
 brum corporis excusare, quod non igni indigeat." 
 
 "And he shall take a censer full of burning coals of fire from 
 off the altar before the Lord (Leviticus 16 : 12). We read also 
 in Isaiah, that the prophet is purged by fire by one of the Sera- 
 phim, sent to him, when he took with the tongs a live coal from 
 those which were upon the altar, and touched the lips of the 
 prophet and said, ^Behold I have taken away thine iniquities.' 
 These things seem to me to belong to the mysteries, and to in- 
 dicate this, that to every one according to that which he sins, 
 if he shall be worthy to be purified, burning coals shall be put 
 upon his members. Eor since the prophet says : ' I have unclean 
 lips, also 1 dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips,' there- 
 fore, a live coal having been taken by the Seraphim with tongs, 
 
BAPTISM BY A COAL OF FIKE. 241 
 
 he purifies his lips, by which only he professes himself to be not 
 clean. . . . But we, if every one would examine his conscience, 
 1 know not if we could excuse any member of our body, that 
 it should not need the fire. ... I fear lest we deserve the fire not 
 for particular members, but for the whole body. . . . All are 
 not purged by that fire which is taken from the altar. Aaron 
 is purged by that fire, and Isaiah, and if there are any like them» 
 But others who are not as they, among whom I reckon myself,, 
 will be purged by another fire. I fear lest by that of which it 
 is written : 'A fiery stream ran before him.' (Dan. 7 : 10.) This 
 fire is not frona the altar. The fire which is from the altar is the 
 fire of the Lord, but that which is not from the altar, is not of 
 the Lord, but is of the sinner himself., concerning which it is said, 
 ' Their worm shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched.' 
 (Isaiah 66 : 24.) Therefore, this fire is theirs who kindled it, as it 
 is elsewhere written : 'Walk in the light of your fire, and in the 
 sparks that ye have kindled.' But his own fire is not applied to 
 Isaiah, but the fire of the altar which purged around his lips." — 
 Origen, ii, 517, 519. 
 
 Bdnrcffov [it^ rbv [xiXXovra j^anri^etv zohq Trcffreuovraq di vdaroq, xal 
 nv£Ufiaro<;, xai Tzvpdiz' vdari duvafiivu) d-onXuvai raJv ap.apriwv rov jSopfSopov 
 nveufiari, duya[j.ivu) tou^ ^o'uouq, Tzveujiaruovq dizepyaffaaOar Tzup), Tts^uxorc 
 xaraxaiscv rag raiv dvo/njp.dTwv dxAvOaq. 
 
 "Baptize me, who am about to baptize them that believe, by 
 water, and Spirit, and fire ; by water, possessing power to wash 
 away the filth of sins; by Spirit, possessing power to make the 
 earthl}^ spiritual ; by fire, possessing a nature to burn up the 
 thorns of transgressions." — Gregory Thaumaturgus, x, 1188. 
 
 Zeprivoq — ov [lerd TcXeiffTTjv jSaadvajv vtzoixovtjv, xe^aX^<: dTTOTofirj xoXoffSrjvac 
 Xoyoiq e'/si. Kai yuvauuJv dk "Hpa'iq ert. xara^/^ouiiivi], to ^dT:riff[ia, &q nou 
 (pyjaiv auroq, to did Ttupt^ Xa^ouaa rov ^iov i^sXi^XuSev . 
 
 " Serenus — who, after the endurance of great torments, is said 
 to have been beheaded. And of women, Herais, yet a catechu- 
 men, received that baptism which is by fire, as elsewhere related, 
 and departed out of this life." — Eusehius, ii, 532. 
 
 AMBROSE. 
 
 The purification fi'om the defilement contracted by touch- 
 ing a dead body, required by the ceremonial law, and spoken 
 
 16 
 
242 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 of by Jews and Patrists as a baptism, is here applied by Am- 
 brose to those who live among, and become defiled by con- 
 tact with those who are '■^dead in trespasses and sins." As 
 the one required baptism, so the other required baptism. 
 Special application is made to the case of Isaiah, who con- 
 fesses himself to be "a man of unclean lips, and to dwell 
 among a people of unclean lips." The first baptism was 
 effected by the purifying power of sprinkled lieifer ashes; 
 the second baptism was effected by the purifying power of a 
 burning coal. In neither case is the word baptism used, but 
 in both cases the descriptive terms identify with baptism, as 
 proved to be held by Jew and Patrist. To make an argu- 
 ment on the mere absence of a word, as fatal to the existence 
 of a baptism, is what no intelligent man will do. To deny 
 the applicability of the terra baptism to a case evidently 
 made out for such application, and so used by competent 
 writers, because we have not been accustomed to such ap- 
 plication, is to rebel against supreme authority. 
 
 Suppose a child has advanced so far in the knowledge of 
 words as to understand, among other rudimentary terms, 
 the names and application of words to designate colors, and 
 bringing a handful of berries from the garden, is told by a 
 parent, not to eat them for they are green. The child looks 
 up in wonder, and exclaims: " Surely they are not 'green;' 
 they are red all over." When the answer is returned: "Yes, 
 they are 'red:' but being 6focZ;berries, they are green because 
 they are red." With what an access of wonder and of blank 
 incredulity will the child listen to all this. The same hand- 
 ful of berries are "red," and " black," and " green," at one 
 and the same time. What shall he do ? Set up his child- 
 knowledge against the knowledge of his parent? and the 
 testimony of his own eyes against the testimony of his pa- 
 rent? Shall he stoutly affirm, that red berries cannot be black- 
 berries; but if red berries could be blackberries, certainly 
 they could not be green berries; but if red could be black, 
 or could be green, most assuredly they could not be red, and 
 black, and green I And if father and mother say so, "I will 
 order them to go to school." 
 
BAPTISM BY A COAL OF FIRE. 243 
 
 The friends of the theory have learned, as they suppose, 
 that " a baptism is a dipping, and nothing but a dipping;" and 
 when they are told, by Jews, that a baptism is eflected by 
 the sprinkling of heifer ashes; they answer, " It cannot be." 
 And when they are told, by Gentiles, that a baptism is ef- 
 fected by laying a burning coal upon the lips; they redouble 
 their cry, "It cannot possibly be." Do we not know that 
 "dipping" is baptism? How then can sprinkling be a bap- 
 tism? , But if sprinkling can be baptism, how is it post>ible 
 that laying a coal of fire on the lips can be baptism? No; such 
 things cannot be ; and " if the Angel Gabriel, himself, were 
 to tell us so, we would order him to school." 
 
 The point made by this illustration is, not a likening of 
 the knowledge of these ardent theorists to child-knowledge 
 — this would be as untrue as it would be unbecoming — but 
 it is to show the great embarrassment and strong resistance 
 which any one must make, when a word has been iixed with 
 a single and exclusive meaning in the mind, when that word 
 is presented in circumstances which create meanings the 
 most opposite and inconsistent with that meaning which we 
 have believed to be exhaustive of the capabilities of the 
 word. 
 
 It is not strange, that those who have put unquestioning 
 faith in Dr. Carson's statement, "My dissertation has forever 
 settled the meaning of /Sarrttw, if there be truth in axioms, 
 to be dip, and nothing but dip," should be startled on finding 
 Josephus and Justin, Clement and Chrysostom, Ambrose 
 and Gregory, Basil and Origen, and a host of others, unite 
 in calling sprinklings, pourings, washings, coals of fire, flam- 
 ing swords, &c., &c., &c., agencies eflecting baptisms. 
 
 But what is best to be done under such circumstances? 
 Is it best still to follow a leader who has shown himself to 
 be utterly mistaken as to the meaning in question, and cry, 
 " To school, to school, Gabriel!" or, to have faith to believe 
 that, in some way or other, (not apprehended by us,) the 
 same object, at the same time, may be even red, black, and 
 green ? 
 
 After Ambrose had spoken of the baptism, by a coal of 
 
244 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 lire, without using the word, he shows jhat his mind was 
 fall of the thing, by commencing the immediately following 
 paragraph with the words, "Baptism is not one," and intro- 
 duces the baptism of the flaming sword, which has just been 
 considered, as another illustration of fire baptism. There 
 can then be no doubt, that^this writer regarded a single coal 
 of fire as competent, not, certainly, to dip, but to baptize — 
 purifying from defilement incurred by utterances of the 
 mouth. 
 
 While such a baptism burns up the theory, it does not 
 leave even "the smell of fire" on the principle, that bap- 
 tisms are eftected by controlling influences without regard 
 to form in the action, or covering in the condition. 
 
 ORIGEN. 
 
 Censer of Burning Coals. — Origen believed that the censer 
 of burning coals, taken by the high priest into the holy of 
 holies, and the burning coal applied to Isaiah's lips, were of 
 mystical import. He interprets that meaning as teaching, a 
 baptism of fire applied to whatever member of the body may 
 be the cause of defilement through transgression. He sup- 
 poses the sin of the prophet to consist in wrong utterances, 
 and therefore the baptizing power was applied to the lips. 
 Origen does not teach that the defilement was in the lips; 
 but the whole man was defiled through the lips. Therefore 
 be says, " Thy iniquities are taken away." So he argues 
 afterward, that any other member — eyes, hands, feet — that 
 should engage in doing wrong, and thus defile us, "would 
 need the fire." This shows, conclusively, that Origen did 
 not believe in the idea that a baptism was limited to a cover- 
 ing any more than to a dipping ; for his doctrine applied fire, 
 the baptizing agency, to the lips, the hand, the foot, while the 
 baptism, the purifying influence, extended throughout the 
 entire defiled person. He also speaks of those who give 
 their whole bodies to sin, instead of giving them to the 
 Lord, and of needing baptism by a difl'erent fire. This fire, 
 he says, may be that "fiery stream" which was seen by 
 
BAPTISM BY A COAL OP FIRE. 245 
 
 Daniel to run before the Lord. But here he says nothing 
 about dipping into this flowing fire. 
 
 But whether the theory will, in the absence of informa- 
 tion as to the depth of this stream, think it worth while (in 
 view of sprinkling, and pouring, and sword baptisms) to put 
 in a plea, " if there was a baptism the word would prove, 
 even in a desert, that there was enough water (fire) for a 
 dipping," or not, I cannot tell. I suppose, however, not 
 many would volunteer "to go down into " the fiery stream, 
 to ofiiciate at the dipping. But in what way soever the bap- 
 tism may have taken place in this fire-river, if they were put 
 beneath the glowing flood, nothing is more certain than that 
 such a feature had nothing to do (beyond any other accident 
 which might or might not be present) in constituting the 
 baptism. Origen most distinctly recognizes as baptism, the 
 very limited application of the fire to any member of the 
 body. This is his language: "I fear lest we deserve the fire 
 not for particular members, but for the whole body." Some 
 were baptized by fire, by a limited application, others by a 
 general application. The character of the sins determined 
 the extent of application of the fire. 
 
 " Another fire." K^ot only was "baptism by fire" a distinct 
 genus among baptisms, but there were varieties among fire- 
 baptisms. This is distinctly taught by Origen, in making a 
 broad distinction between baptism by " fire from off the 
 altar," and that which was by fire not from the altar. The 
 first is "fire of the Lord," the last is "fire of the sinner." 
 Liasmuch as these fires are agencies, and their effect upon 
 sin and the sinner must depend upon their own character, 
 real or putative, it is obvious that the influence produced by 
 fire of the Lord and "fire of the sinner," cannot be the same. 
 It follows, therefore, that the resultant conditions (baptisms) 
 produced by these alien influences, must be alien from each 
 other. And this brings us back again to the loudly-pro- 
 claimed truth: " Baptism is not one." 
 
 GREGORY THAUMATURGUS. 
 
 Power of Baptism — The extract from Gregory Tbaumatur- 
 
246 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 gus, brings out vividly the truth that, in these secondary 
 baptisms, there is no receiving element into which the bap 
 tized object passes, but the baptism is effected by, and exists 
 in the effect of the power belonging to the agency. This is 
 exhibited appropriately by the simple dative. But as this 
 case is used in a local (with preposition) as well as instru- 
 mental sense, advantage has been taken of this (sometimes 
 with unexampled violence) to insist on a conversion of the 
 agency into a local element. 
 
 Bat such mischievous interpretation is effectually arrested 
 by the sutts-atutiou of the genitive in the place of the dative. 
 That is the case here. The baptism is effected SI uSazuq — 
 msviiaroq — r.upd';. There is uo possibility of transforming this 
 water, spirit, fire, into anything else than agenc3\ Accumu- 
 late water over the baptized object until it is submerged five 
 hundred fathom deep, and yet you have made no progress 
 toward the conversion of ^^ odaroq into iv udart- let a diseased 
 imagination envelop the soul and body "in the spirit" 
 poured out and rising up around it until it out-tops the 
 mountains, and dtd meu/jLaToq is no more iv Tzvsu/xau than is a 
 circle a square; deepen the fire-river until its bed rests on 
 the centre of the globe, and dip the hapless sinner into its 
 lowest depths, and Sid -upoq is as far removed from t'-> Ttupt as 
 6j/ is from in. The whence case and the where case are in- 
 convertible. This point receives additional evidence, of the 
 strongest possible kind, by the conjunction of Suva/iivat with 
 these terms. To be baptized " by the power of water," " by 
 the power of the Spirit," " by the riature of fire," as expres- 
 sive of simple enclosure in water, in Spirit, in fire, is impossible 
 and absurd phraseology. But if water, and Spirit, and fire 
 are agencies accomplishing baptisms by their peculiar power, 
 naturally or specially conferred, then, this quali tying term 
 is most appropriate, and the theory is robbed of her receiv- 
 ing element; that palladium which being lost, all is lost. 
 
 This usage is most entirely coincident with that of the 
 Classics. In all baptisms kindred to those which are now 
 under consideration, they invariably use the dative, without 
 a preposition, instrumeutally. Wine is not the element in 
 
BAPTISM BY A COAL OF FIRE. 247 
 
 which the baptism is effected, but the means hy which. Drugs 
 are not the element in which the man is put to sleep (bap- 
 tized), but hy which. Questions, magical arts, hard study, taxes, 
 debts, grief, famine, 2iYQ not elements in lohich men are bap- 
 tized, but means by ivhich they are brought under their seve- 
 ral peculiar and controlling powers. 
 
 Classic, Jewish, and Patristic writings show that the theo- 
 rists, unwarned by the blunder of Gale, (in making the nude 
 dative local, in order to make /5a7rrcy dip, and eo get the lake 
 in the blood of the frog, instead of accepting a secondary 
 meaning as indicated by the instrumental form, and dyeing 
 the lake by blood), have perpetuated that error in their in- 
 terpretation of these baptisms. To correct the error is to 
 take the underpinning from the theory. 
 
 EUSEBIUS. 
 
 Baptism by the fire of martyrdom. — Herais, a female cate- 
 chumen and yet unbaptized by water, was put to -death by 
 fire, as a disciple of Christ. But the historian says : " She 
 received that baptism which is by fire." Water baptism, 
 ordinarily, w^as essential to salvation, because it was believed 
 that there was a " power "in the water to take away sin from 
 the soul. It WAQ, however, agreed, that this power was not 
 limited to water, but belonged, also, to "confession" of 
 Christ by martyrdom. This was called sometimes, generi- 
 cally, " baptism of martyrdom," " baptism of confession," 
 and sometimes, specifically, "baptism of blood," "baptism 
 of fire." 
 
 The baptism had nothing, whatever, to do with the mode 
 or extent of the application of the blood or fire to the body. 
 These things were only the signs, or means of death. In 
 death by fire the body was, more or less, enveloped by the 
 flames, perhaps never absolutely, but this v^as no part of 
 the baptism; that centred in dying for Christ. In this same 
 extract we have a reference to a martyr who was beheaded. 
 How much of his body was " enveloped" by the sword ? It 
 was as much a baptism of the sword as that at the gate of 
 Paradise. How much of his body was "covered" by his 
 
248 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 blood ? If the headlesss trunk spouted forth, its blood so 
 that not one drop fell upon it, it was as much a baptism by 
 blood, as if it had been sunk in the Nile when, under Moses' 
 rod, its billows rolled in one crimson tide of blood. 
 
 In every aspect in which the subject is presented we find 
 nowhere a baptism in a receiving element; we find every- 
 where, under every form of action, baptisms efi'ected by 
 agencies possessed of power to control comijleiely the condition 
 of their objects. 
 
 A fiery stream, or a coal of fire, is equally suitable, as 
 agencies, to effect a baptism. 
 
 Isaiah, baptized by the seraphim with a burning coal, wit- 
 nesses with pure and glowing lips that "the theory" is of 
 earth and not from heaven. 
 
 BAPTISM BY WATEE, BY SPIEIT, AND BY FIKE. 
 Isaiah 4 : 4. 
 
 "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 by the 
 spirit of burning." 
 
 Septiiagint. 
 
 "On ixnkuysT xvpioq rhv pu-^ov tcov olaJv xal rcSv Soyaripwv Zcojv, xal to 
 aipa txxadapiel Ix niaou aurcov^ ^v nvsu/iari xpiffscog xai ~v£u/j.a~i xauaeux;. 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 ^ Eizsi yoov aiicpoTtpa au'^r^^'^v 6 Kupco^, t6 ts i^ udaTo^ £l<; 
 
 fX£Tdyoiav, xai to ^x Ily£U[j.aTuq el^ dvayiw^r^ffcv, xai 6 Xoyoq alvcffffsrac dpfo- 
 Tspa TO. (ia-ziffpa-a. MrjTtore rptTq eiatv al enhotai rou jSa-Tt^paro':, o 
 T£ TOO ^UTZOU xadapiffpoq, xai ;y bid too Uveuparoq dyayivvTiaiq, xai rj cv rw 
 itup\ T^<r xp'iaewq ^daavoq. 
 
 "This passage foretells, clearly, the same things which were 
 spoken by John concerning the Lord: 'This is he who shall 
 baptize you by the Holy Spirit and fire/ but concerning him- 
 self, he says: 'I indeed baptize you with water into repentance.* 
 Since then the Lord conjoined both, that from water into re- 
 
BAPTISM BY WATER, BY SPIRIT, AND BY FIRE. 249 
 
 pentance, and that from the Spirit into regeneration, the Scrip- 
 ture, also, foreshadows both these baptisms. Perhaps there are 
 three meanings of baptism : purification from defilement^ regen- 
 eration by the Spirit, and trial by the fire of judgment. So that 
 ' the washing' (v. 4) is to be understood in reference to the re- 
 moval of sin now; but 'by the spirit of judgment and by the 
 spirit of burning,' (v. 4,) the reference is to the trial by fire in 
 the future world." — Basil the Great, ii, 341. 
 
 BASIL. 
 
 By the spirit of burning. — The Septuagint, in translating 
 this passage, uses the preposition {iv) but once, while Basil, 
 following the Hebrew more closely, repeats it, — iv r^veuimzt 
 
 xpiaewq xai iv 7iv£u/iari xaucTsux;. 
 
 It is admitted that ^v has an instrumental as well as a local 
 force ; but the theory is interested to make the former mean- 
 ing as near zero as possible, and especially to insist, that in 
 all cases of baptism it must have a local meaning. It is de- 
 sirable, then, to look at the matter in the light of the usage 
 of this highly accomplished Greek writer. 
 
 1. The subject-matter embraced in these datives, is not 
 favorable to the sense claimed. "Washing out (^ztt/Iovs:) and 
 purging out [hxadapiet) in (^v) a spirit of judgment and in {^v) 
 a spirit of burning." It is not likely that the sons and 
 daughters of Zion would be represented as put within such 
 things, to wash them and to purge them. But such sugges- 
 tions of congruity are "lighter than vanity" when they con- 
 flict with — "nothing but dip." We have seen this abun- 
 dantly exemplified in Classic Baptism where, in the absence 
 of the preposition, they have made the naked dative the oc- 
 casion for putting men in a bottle of wine, in an opiate drug, 
 and in a perplexing question. We must, then, fiud some 
 other reason more imperative than the fitness of things. 
 
 2. We show then, by other phraseology in the context, 
 that Basil had no other idea than the use of this preposition 
 with an instrumental force. 
 
 This is manifest (1.) From his omission of the preposition; 
 
 as, T(5 51 Ttvsviiart xpiasojq xal nvsOfian xauaeojq, in the same para- 
 
250 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 graph. But as we have ah^eady seen the natural force be- 
 longing to this form of expression to be utterly set at naught, 
 when there was nothing to encourage so doing; now, having 
 aid and corhfort from the previous use of iv^ we can expect 
 no voluntary concession. It must be wrung out, Basil fur- 
 nishes us with material to do this. 
 
 3. The dative, with the preposition, is changed into the 
 genitive, with its prepositions. Thus iv udan becomes i^ oda- 
 
 Toq ; iv Tiveu/JLart becomes ix Hveu/iaroq -, iv ru> Tcopi becomes Sia too 
 Tzupoq, and t^- Tou 7:up6<:; iv 7zveu[j.ari xauaewq becomes Slol rr^q too 
 
 meuiiaroq y.avaewq; and all this in a single paragraph. 
 
 No wonder the theory makes a hard tight here. The con- 
 version of these datives into agencies, like the burning light- 
 ning, withers its life to the very roots. Basil does his work 
 well. 
 
 Three meanings. — This able commentator says that bap- 
 tism (as presented in this passage, not absolutely,) has three 
 meanings or phases of development. It has been said (and 
 I think the evidence to substantiate it given) in Classic Bap- 
 tism, that " baptism is myriad-sided;" and, here, in a single 
 passage, we are told, by a most accomplished Greek writer, 
 that there is a threefold development of the word. And it 
 is of this word the theory says: "It means dip, and nothing 
 but dip, through all Greek literature." 
 
 It will be observed, in this threefold baptism, that condi- 
 tion is an ever-present element, and dipping, never. 
 
 1. Purification: a condition of purity induced, by the ap- 
 propriate means, from either Judaic ceremonial impurity, 
 or from the defilement of "lis-hter" sins. 
 
 2. Regeneration: a condition of new spiritual life; the re- 
 sult of a radical change in that condition pertaining to birth 
 by nature. 
 
 3. Trial by fire of judgment: a final test of our condition of 
 preparation to enter into the Paradise of God. 
 
 "Attic salt" has been freely sprinkled upon those who 
 talked of a " religious " meaning belonging to ^ar.ri'^oj. And 
 yet the Archbishop of Csesarea, the first among Greek Pa- 
 triarchs, furnishes us with something that looks very much 
 
BAPTISMS MENTAL AND MORAL. 251 
 
 like a religious meaning of this word. Certainly there is 
 but little which resembles, in nature, that Classic use which 
 has heretofore engaged our attention. Religious purification 
 is the ground-thought, as presented in these three baptisms; 
 this elementary idea receiving coloring from the specialties 
 of each case. Religious usage has given a religious mean- 
 ing, or fact is fiction. 
 
 But while there is a religious element and a religious 
 meaning here present, it is reached without the slightest de- 
 parture from the principles of language, and without laying 
 aside the original fundamental thought of condition, charac- 
 terized by completeness. The difference exists only in the char- 
 acter of the agencies, and the ends to which they are ad- 
 dressed. Take wine, as a baptizing agency, and you have 
 a Classic baptism of one kind. Take a drugged drink, as a 
 baptizing agency, and you have a Classic baptism of another 
 kind. "Baptism is not one," is a doctrine as much believed 
 by the Classics as by the Patrists. Among the " multa 
 genera baptismatum," the genus treated of by Basil and his 
 friends, differed from that treated of by Plutarch and his as- 
 sociates. 
 
 These Jire baptisms throw their light far and wide; but 
 their light is darkness to the theory. 
 
 BAPTISMS— MENTAL AND MOKAL. 
 
 BAPTISM BY HEAVY IRON AND BY HEAVIEST SINS. 
 II Kings 6 : 5, 6. 
 
 " But as one was felling a beam, the axe-head fell into the 
 water; and he cried, and said, Alas, master! for it was bor- 
 rowed. 
 
 ''And the man of God said, Where fell it? And he showed 
 him the place. And he cut down a stick and cast it in thither; 
 and the iron did swim." 
 
252 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 SbXov ' Ehffffaloq jSaXihv iig rov ^lopddvvjv noranbv avyjveyxs rbv mdrjpov 
 TTji; d^{v7j(;, iv tJ TzeTtopeu/xivot Tjaav 61 uloi t(ov Ttpocpr^rwv x6(lia>. . . . wr; xai 
 r][w.q [is^aTiTiaixivouq rate; ^apordraiq dp-apriaiq aq iirpd^aixev did zoo ffzau- 
 pwOrjvac ^m zou ^uXou xal di odazoq dyvtaai 6 Xpiazoq vjiiibv iXuzpaxrazo. 
 
 " Elisha casting a stick into the river Jordan, brought up the 
 iron of the axe with which the sons of the prophets had gone 
 forth to cut wood ... as also Christ hath redeemed us, mersed 
 by heaviest sins which we have committed, through the cruci- 
 fixion upon the wood, and purification through water." — Justin 
 Martyr, 681. 
 
 " Bxiliit ferrum, et mersura est in flumiue, . . . accepto ligno, 
 et misso in eum locum, ubi subraersum fuerat ferrum, statim 
 
 supernatavit Quid manifestius hujus ligni sacramento? 
 
 quod duritia hujus sgeculi mersa in profundo erroris, et a ligno 
 Christi, id est passionis ejus, in baptisrao, liberatur, ut quod 
 perierat olim per lignum in Adam, id restitueretur per lignum 
 Christi." 
 
 "Moreover we read in the book of Kings that the sacrament 
 of this word is celebrated. For when the sons of the prophets 
 were cutting wood wath axes over the river Jordan, the iron fell 
 off and was mersed in the river; and so the j^rophet Elisha, com- 
 ing up, the sons of the prophets ask from him that he would draw 
 out the iron which had been mersed in the river. Elisha hav- 
 ing taken a piece of wood, and east it into the place where the 
 iron had been submersed, immediately it floated. . . . By which 
 the}'' understood that the spirit of Elijah was present again in 
 him. What is more clear than the sacrament of this wood? 
 that the hardness of this age, mersed in the depth of error, is 
 delivered by the wood of Christ." — TertuUian, ii, 636. 
 
 ^Onep ^v ariixeiov dvaycvyrji; (pu^^aJv did ^bXou, k.(p o7) iziitov^ev 6 (pu'/^dq 
 dvdysiv duvd[ievoq, dxoXouSvvcraq dvodcu zrj iaozoo. 
 
 " Which was a sign of the bringing up of souls, through the 
 cross, upon which he suffered, who is able to bring up souls fol- 
 lowing in the way of his ascending." — Irenosus, 1243. 
 
 OZzog ((J Gzaopb'z) ditb zoo ^0600 z^c xaxiaq ijiiaq dvdarcdffaq. 
 
 "This (the cross) drawing us up from the depth of deprav- 
 ity." — Chrysostom, ii, 407. 
 
 n 
 
BAPTISM OF THE AXE. 253 
 
 " Invocavit Eliseus Domini nomen, et de aqua fefrum securis 
 ascendit quod demersum fuerat. Ecce aliud genus baptisraatis. 
 Quare? Quia omnis homo ante baptismum quasi ferrum pre- 
 mitur, atque demergitur, ubi baptizatus fuerit, non tanquam fer- 
 rum, sed tanquam jam levior fructuosi ligni species elevatur. 
 . . . Vides, ergo, quod in cruce Christi omnium hominum leva- 
 tur infirmitas." 
 
 "Elisha called upon the name of the Lord, and the iron of the 
 axe which had been demersed ascends from the water. Behold, 
 another kind of baptism ! Why ? Because every man before 
 baptism, like iron, is pressed down and demersed; when bap- 
 tized, not like iron, but like some lighter kind of fruitful wood, 
 he is raised up. . . . Thou seest, therefore, that by the cross of 
 Christ the infirmity of all men is lightened." — Ambrose, in, 427. 
 
 BAPTISM OF THE AXE. 
 
 The mersion of the axe in Jordan has special interest, 
 because it brings us back into a purely classic atmosphere. 
 Heathen writers give us abundant cases in which heavy 
 bodies, going down to the bottom of rivers, lakes, marshes, 
 and seas, and remaining there unrecovered, are in a state 
 of baptism. A ship, a fishing-spear, a breastplate, a man in 
 armor, sunk in river or sea, is baptized, lost, in a ruined 
 condition. 
 
 The natural, unavoidable application in secondary use, 
 of the word expressive of such condition, would be to such 
 things as exhibit a condition of suffering or ruin. Thus, a 
 man who had lost the control of his intellect by hard study, 
 or bewilderment, or idiocy; who had lost the control of his 
 property by debt or misfortune ; who had lost his happiness 
 through some great sorrow; who had lost his health by dis- 
 ease ; who had lost his consciousness through intoxication ; 
 was freely called a baptized man. The classic, secondary 
 use of the word did not pass, at all or but little, beyond this 
 range of application to conditions of injury, loss, and ruin. 
 Josephus frequently employs the word after the usage of the 
 classics, and also carries it into another sphere, namely, that 
 of religion, as expressive of a condition of ceremonial puri- 
 
254 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 fication. In doing this, he neither departs from the funda- 
 mental character of the word, nor from the principle of 
 classic usage in its extension to cases of controlling influ- 
 ence, where" there is no physical envelopment. 
 
 While a very hirge number of cases of mersion result in 
 injury or destruction, this is not the case with every mersion. 
 The nature of the condition resultant from a phj'sical mer- 
 sion will depend: 1. On the nature of the element within 
 which the mersion takes place ; and, 2. On the nature of the 
 object raersed. Time of continuance cannot be introduced 
 as an additional element determiiiino- the condition to which 
 mersion may be applied, because mersion has no limitation 
 of time, and to introduce such an element would be to intro- 
 duce what is foreign to its nature. A mersed condition may 
 be changed by ibreign influences, but it has no element of 
 change within itself. Baptism, therefore, can only be ap- 
 plied to such conditions as are either absolutely permanent, 
 or which left to themselves would be so. 
 
 Historically we have, as elements of mersion, water, (in 
 various forms, fresh, salt, pure, impure, hot, cold, as also 
 impregnated with various qualities,) oil, milk, wine, blood, 
 vinegar, mud, marsh, the human body, &c. As mersed ob- 
 jects we have, rocks, metals, salt, sponge, a crown,' a pickle, 
 human beings, a dolphin, an ape, clean things, unclean 
 things, &c. &c. 
 
 Now it is obvious, that the mersion of the same object into 
 difterent elements would be productive of conditions widely 
 different. Take, for instance, a piece of limestone and im- 
 merse it, first in water and then in vinegar, and how different 
 the resultant conditions. Take any object and immerse it 
 in water or in oil, in milk or in blood, and how different 
 the result. Take a vegetable and immerse it in syrup or in 
 vinegar, and you have a preserve or a pickle. Mersion in 
 clean water or dirty water has not the same issue. If you 
 take different objects and use the same element, you still 
 have a diversity of conditions. The mersion of a dolphin 
 and an ape in water, is a condition of life in the one case and 
 of death in the other. The mule of the fable found out, 
 
BAPTISM OP THE AXE. 255 
 
 that the condition resultant from the mersion of a bag of 
 salt or of a bag of sponge, in the same element, was widely 
 diverse. Merse clean linen into pure water and muddy 
 water; is the result the same? 
 
 J^othing can be more evident, than that Classic Baptism, 
 with its wide range of elements and of objects, could never 
 be restricted, by any necessity of its own, to the designation 
 of condition limited by injury or ruin. It is perfectly adapted 
 to this end; but no less so to express condition, endlessly 
 varied, under the ruling thought of controlling influence. 
 
 When this Greek word was introduced within the sphere 
 of revealed religion it met, everywhere, the demand for a con- 
 dition of complete ceremonial purification. It met with in- 
 fluences proceeding, by divine enactment, from water, blood, 
 heifer ashes, &c., competent to effect such condition. To se- 
 cure such condition, modes of use — washing, pouring, sprink- 
 ling, (but never the dipping of men and women into water,) 
 — were found divinely enacted. Under these circumstances 
 Jewish writers took this word and applied it, without vary- 
 ing one jot or tittle from the principle of Classic usage, to a 
 condition resultant from controlling influence; the specific 
 condition being — complete ceremonial purijicaiion. Patristic 
 writers, while thoroughly accepting both Classic and Jewish 
 usage, carry on the idea through ceremonial rites and types 
 to the consummation of a complete spiritual purification, 
 through agencies which they believed were fully competent 
 to control the result without dipping or covering, any more 
 than Classic usage, in parallel cases, required dipping or 
 covering. 
 
 Let us now attend to the manner in which this axe-bap- 
 tism, so separated from Judaism and so exclusively Classical 
 in its character, is treated by the Theorists and the Patrists 
 respectively ; as, also, to its bearing on their principles. 
 
 Dr. Carson lays hands on this transaction with a smile of 
 joy and claims it all his own. But why. Doctor ? Is this 
 baptism to be marshalled under — "Modal act, dip and noth- 
 ing but dip, through all Greek literature ?" Was the axe 
 " dipped " into the Jordan ? " Although there i's no exempli- 
 
256 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 fication of the act of dipping in the axe falling, yet the wovd 
 expresses the act, and was designed to express it, as much 
 as in any case of dipping, as I have proved, (to my entire 
 satisfaction,) in the sea-coast baptism, where ' overflow ' is 
 put, by catachresis, for dipping, just as 'fall' is here put 
 for dipping. The axe, when it fell into the water, was 
 covered, and when it was brought up by the prophet it was 
 uncovered, just as the sea-coast is covered and bare at high 
 and low tide. In both cases one form of act is, by figure, 
 put for another form of act; and any one who has a soul for 
 poetry can see the beauty of the figure." But your friends. 
 Fuller, and Ripley, and Conant, having read your explana- 
 tion of catachristic baptism, say, they cannot see the poetry, 
 and that "overflow" must remain orerfloiv, and "fall" must 
 remain /«^?, just as in plain prose. "Then, what are they 
 contending for; they give up the question; baptizing is dip- 
 ping, and dipping is baptizing?" Well, I have been trying 
 to find out where they are since they have slipped anchor 
 from the dipping ground; but I cannot say. But, Doctor, 
 it seems that the axe was a good while under water ; and if 
 it had been a son of the prophet who got this baptism in the 
 Jordan instead of the axe, and he had lain on the bottom 
 until they went after the prophet, and told the story, and 
 brought him to the spot, and he had cut a stick, and thrown 
 it in, it would not have done him much good to have brought 
 him up again. Like Aristobulus he would have " remained 
 under too long." 
 
 This axe-baptism, so thoroughly Classic, confronts the 
 theory with two projecting and very sharp horns; on the 
 one is written — "No dipping in me; " on the other — "IN"© 
 taking out of Jordan by me." 
 
 This axe of the sons of the prophets cuts up the theory 
 even on the very banks of Jordan. Perhaps it could not be 
 put to better service. Its trenchant blows are irresistible. 
 "Modal act," "catachresis," ^^ temporary covering," can no 
 more resist its blows, than the turbaned head of the Saracen 
 the blows of the battle-axe of Richard. The theory is brained, 
 and dies (with poetical justice) by the loved banks of the river. 
 
BAPTISM BY HEAVIEST SINS. 257 
 
 "W"e will now look at the theory in the light of that " ether 
 kind of baptism" which the Patrists deduce from this literal 
 and Classic baptism. 
 
 JUSTIN MARTYR. 
 
 Justin, originally a Greek philosopher, familiar with all its 
 schools of learning, and then, a Christian, Patrist, and Martyr, 
 says, " So, also, we are baptized by heaviest sins." This, cer- 
 tainly, is "another baptism" from enveloping water, and yet 
 it is a true baptism if we may rely upon the testimony of one 
 who was a Greek of the Greeks. What is the resemblance 
 between the two baptisms, and what is the justification in 
 carrying over the name from the one to the other? 
 
 1. The baptisms resemble each other in that neither re- 
 quires a modal act for its accomplishment. As a matter of 
 fact the axe was baptized hy falling, and " falling " is a modal 
 act; but I have never understood that the theory took the 
 ground that "falling was baptizing and baptizing was fall- 
 ing." As a matter of fact our first parents were "baptized 
 by heaviest sin " through the eating of the forbidden fruit. 
 And " eating " is a modal act ; yet, I presume we will not 
 be required to identify the modal act of eating with the modal 
 act oi falling, or be shut up to the proof that " eating is bap- 
 tizing and baptizing is eating." 
 
 I think we may safely assume that Justin's baptism does 
 not forfeit its title, because the act, by which the soul is bap- 
 tized through sin, is not of the same modal form as that by 
 which the axe passes to its baptism on the bottom of the 
 Jordan. 
 
 2. These baptisms resemble each other in that both are 
 characterized by completeness of condition. The one of 
 fact, a complete water envelopment ; the other not of fact, 
 nor of imagination, but of verbal suggestion. The theory 
 does not require that physical envelopment should be shown 
 in sin-baptism, as a fact, but demands the inefiable absurdity 
 that the sinner should, by a lively imagination, be dipped 
 into water! There is no such rhetorical bathos in Justin's 
 "other baptism." Verbal suggestion of envelopment, more 
 
 17 
 
258 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 or less according to circumstances, is all that belongs to the 
 word at any time in this secondary use ; and oftentimes, as 
 to the design of the writer or the fitness of the case, this 
 suggestion has no existence. And for this there is the most 
 substantial reason. These secondary baptisms are not de- 
 duced from those primary baptisms in which there is mere 
 envelopment; but from a very different class, namely, those 
 in which the envelopment is overshadowed by its result, and 
 is of no value except as causative of that result. To illus- 
 trate : Suppose one of the sons of the prophets had picked 
 up a pebble and thrown it into the river; there would have 
 been a baptism, a complete envelopment, and that would 
 have been all. The baptism would not have been causative 
 of injury to the pebble, or of loss and grief to the son of the 
 prophet. ITow if such baptism (of mere envelopment), had 
 been exhaustive of literal baptisms, we would never have 
 heard of grief baptisms, and debt baptisms, and sleep bap- 
 tisms, and drunken baptisms, among the Classics; nor of 
 purification baptisms, and sin baptisms, among Jews and 
 Patrists. 
 
 A man who would make a pebble baptism the basis of a 
 "baptism for the soul in sin" would be a laughing-stock for 
 the common sense of the world. What would be the re- 
 semblance ? " The envelopment." But there is no envelop- 
 ment in sin. "True, but we imagine it." And whj^, for 
 its own sake? "No, not for the mere envelopment, but 
 
 for " Well, for what ? " Why, I suppose to show how 
 
 fully at every point, the soul is subject to the influence of 
 sin." Very well ; will you now be so kind as to point out the 
 fulness of influence exerted at every point, by water, over a 
 flint pebble ? " If not made soaking Avet, it is damj) outside." 
 
 It is unnecessary to say, that there is no more basis in bap- 
 tisms of naked envelopment on which to ground secondary 
 baptisms of influence, than there was to be found a -ou araj 
 for Archimedes to lift the world. I repeat, therefore, that 
 the baptism of Justin is founded on another class of baptisms, 
 namely, the baptism of a world, of a ship, of a human being, 
 issuing in loss, ruin, and death. In such baptisms envelop- 
 
BAPTISM BY HEAVIEST SIiSIS. 259 
 
 ment is subsidiar}'^ to influence ; and, therefore, in secondary 
 baptisms based upon them, the formal cause may disap- 
 pear, while correspondent influence appears in boldest relief. 
 This truth Dr. Carson is compelled to admit. In answer to 
 the objection, that there is no resemblance of envelopment 
 between these secondary and primary baptisms, he replies 
 (p. 493) : " Is not the resemblance in the effects ?" How this 
 consists with the theory it is no business of ours to show; 
 but it relieves us, by the confession of an opponent, of the 
 necessity for shoAving any resemblance, or any existence of 
 envelopment in the case of secondary baptisms, if we can 
 show existence and resemblance of " effects." 
 
 3. I proceed, then, to show : That these baptisms resemble 
 each other in their resultant "effects." The baptism of the 
 axe brought it into a lost condition. There was nothing in 
 baptism to change that condition; the son of the prophet 
 could not recover it, and he was affected with grief, exclaim- 
 ing, "Alas ! master it was borrowed." The borrower cared 
 nothing for the covering water save as it brought his axe 
 into a lost condition. It was not the envelopment that he 
 cared for, but the effect of that envelopment. Had the axe 
 fallen into shallow water where he could see it and pick it 
 up, effect, lost condition, would not have existed ; and Justin 
 would have lost the opportunity to ground his sin baptism 
 upon it. It is the lost condition of an object lying at the bot- 
 tom of a river, which suggests to this Greek, (who still wears 
 the mantle of a philosopher,) the lost condition baptism of the 
 souls of men, through sin. Now, what need, or fitness, or 
 practicability is there of introducing envelopment in this 
 baptism? The axe was lost, completely lost; the soul is 
 lost, completely lost; the axe is baptized, completely under 
 the influence of the waters as separating it from the loser; 
 the soul is baptized, completely under the influence of sin, 
 which separates it from God, Herein is Justin's justifica- 
 tion in deducing sin baptism from this axe baptism. 
 
 4. There is another point of resemblance in these bap- 
 tisms, which is essential. They are both without limitation 
 in tlieir continuance. The axe would have continued at the 
 
260 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 bottom of Jordan, until this hour, had it been left to its 
 baptism. The Greek word never takes its object out of that 
 condition into which it has once placed it. Souls have con- 
 tinued baptized by sin through thousands of years, and, alas! 
 some will continue " baptized by heaviest sins" through all 
 eternity. 
 
 5. These baptisms resemble each other, in that both may 
 be changed by ah extra influence. The axe may be brought 
 out of its baptism by the prophet; the soul may be brought 
 out of its baptism by the cross of Christ. But without 
 foreign influence baptisms are fixed. 
 
 !N^one can doubt but that Justin's baptism is fitly termed 
 a baptism, not because of any form of act done, nor because 
 of an envelopment the result of some act of any kind ; but 
 because of a condition without any self-changing element, 
 and characterized by controlling influence. 
 
 Compare, now, with this Jordan baptism, the baptism of 
 the theory. 
 
 1. The theory calls for a definite act. " The word, with- 
 out one exception, signifies simply to dip." (Carson, p. 103.) 
 "Well, was " the axe " dipped ? " In any particular instance, 
 where this word is applied to an object lying under water, 
 but not actually dipped, the mode essentially denoted by it, 
 is as truly expressed as in any other instance of its occur- 
 rence. Indeed, the whole beauty of such expressions con- 
 sists in the expression of a mode not really belonging to the 
 thing expressed. The imagination," &c., (p. 21.) We will 
 not follow Dr. Carson's "imagination." Can demonstration 
 be more absolute in proof that Dr. C. had no just conception 
 of the meaning of ^anriZwl Was the axe, baptized in the 
 Jordan, "dipped?" Will any sane "imagination" under- 
 take the task of converting the fall of a piece of iron to the 
 bottom of a river, into a dipping ? Yet the theory imposes 
 this hard task upon its disciples, 
 
 2. The theory makes no provision for state or condition of 
 the baptized object. If the son of the prophet had " dipped" 
 his axe into the Jordan, would he have changed its state or 
 condition? The dipping of no object can, by any possibility. 
 
BAPTISM BY HEAVIEST SINS. 261 
 
 give it a status within the element into which it is clipped; 
 because it cannot be dipped without being brought out, 
 without tarrying, from the element into which it has been 
 introduced. But the very essence of a baptism is the bring- 
 ing of an object into a new state or condition; and, without 
 this, there can be no baptism. The dipping of an axe, there- 
 fore, is no baptism. 
 
 3. The theory makes no provision for complete influence. 
 The act of dipping is, proverbially, a trivial act. The dip- 
 ping of an object can produce but a trivial impression upon 
 it. So thoroughly ingrained is this characteristic in all that 
 pertains to the physical sphere of this word, that it forms the 
 basis for its secondary use, to express trivial operations and 
 influences of the mind. IsTo word is more thoroughly re- 
 moved from the sphere of ^oktU^w^ whether in primary or 
 secondary baptisms, than this dapper word " dip." And yet 
 Dr. Carson makes this word his battle-flag, while strangely 
 shouting, amid the din of arms, "complete subjection to in- 
 fluence." Hear him : " Is not the likeness between complete 
 subjection to the influence of sleep, and the complete subjec- 
 tion of an object to the influence of a liquid when immersed (?) 
 in it ?" (p. 80.) One knows not whether to laugh or frown 
 at the lawless introduction here of "immerse," heaven-wide 
 difi'erent in meaning from dip^ for which he avowedly con- 
 tends. Its substitution, however, proves our position, that 
 "dip " can never bring an object in "complete subjection to 
 the influence of a liquid." It is therefore utterly? incapaci- 
 tated to expound secondary baptisms, which all exhibit some 
 powerful controlling influence, or to be the basis of primary 
 baptisms, on which secondary are grounded. 
 
 Justin would have talked more like a scholastikos than like 
 a philosopher, had he deduced a e,in-dipping from the axe lost 
 in the river depths. 
 
 Brought face to face with this Classic-Patristic Baptism, 
 "the theory" breaks down at all points. 
 
 Justin and Carson are at opposites in their notions of bap- 
 tisms. But, alas! so much the worse for Justin. I suppose 
 he will have to become a fellow-pupil with the Angel Gabriel. 
 
262 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 TRANSLATION. 
 
 ^^ Heaviest Sins." 
 
 Justin Martyr, in speaking of men as baptized by a bap- 
 tism analogous to that of the lost axe, uses this language — 
 
 df<; xai rj/idg ^siSannff/xivouq ralg ^apurdracq d[iap-(aL<^. This phrase- 
 ology is not only of great value, as showing the true nature 
 of baptism, by placing primary baptism and secondary bap- 
 tism (the secondary being the direct offspring of the primary) 
 side by side, but the phraseology itself has special claim to 
 our attention. In the person of this writer, the heathen 
 Classic and the christian Patrist meet together. The forms 
 of expression which he employs, must therefore be of truly 
 Grecian parentage, and any new mental conception, derived 
 from the Christian atmosphere, into which he has been in- 
 troduced, must have its fittest Grecian dress in the words 
 with which he invests it. 
 
 In comparing the language of Justin, on this occasion, 
 with that of other Classic Greek writers, we notice, 1. That 
 both employ the nude dative with ^ar.zilm, 2. That both em- 
 ploy this nude form to express the agency by which the bap- 
 tism is effected, and not the element into which the object 
 is introduced. 3. That neither, in these secondary baptisms 
 made any verbal statement of an enveloping element. 4 
 That neither, certainly, felt the need of any such suggestion 
 and probably, never formed any such mental conception 
 How, now, is this language of Justin treated by the theory ? 
 It is translated by Carson, "immersed in the greatest sins;' 
 "baptized in the most grievous sins." The Greek word 
 neither means "greatest " nor " most grievous," but heaviest. 
 Justin employs this term because it is adapted to express, 
 clearly and forcibly, what he wished to express, namely, an 
 agency of baptism; and, also, because his cultivated mind 
 enabled him to see the fitness of taking this term from the 
 heaviness of the iron, which was causative of the baptism of 
 the axe. Carson rejects this term because it was not adapted 
 to express an element for a dipping, for which his erring theory 
 evermore cries out. 
 
BAPTISM IN THE DEPTH OF ERROR. 263 
 
 The heavy waters of the Dead Sea are not well suited for 
 dipping. The heaviness of the iron, certainly, was not the 
 element into which the axe was dipped. 
 
 What must be thought of the theory of a word whose in- 
 exorable demands require the sacrifice of grammatical forms, 
 the disregard of the evident design of a writer, and the meta- 
 morphosis of heavy iron into an element for dipping? 
 
 I bring no charge of designed wrong against Dr. Carson, 
 His theory, conscientiously and tenaciously held, demands a 
 dipping, and he w^ill " make it find him one in the sands of 
 the desert." E^o wonder, then, when this Classic Patristic 
 writer gives him none, he " makes " his theory find one. It 
 is as easy to turn heavy iron, or heavy sins, into a pool of 
 water, as desert-sands. But Hercules may perish through 
 exhaustion. And the theory, which amuses itself with such 
 freaks of power, will hardly live forever. 
 
 TERTULLIAN. 
 
 " Mersed in the Depth of Error J^ 
 
 Tertullian here introduces us to the element in which, by 
 verbal suggestion, the baptism takes place. It is important 
 that it should receive attention. It is as obvious that Ter- 
 tiillian speaks of the eleruent, as that Justin speaks of the 
 agency. The latter takes weight out of the iron agency, in 
 the first baptism, and attributes it to "sin," the agency in 
 the second baptism; the former takes "depth" out of the 
 river-element, and attributes it to " error," the element, by 
 verbal suggestion, in which the "hardness " (taken out of the 
 axe) "of the age is mersed." 
 
 How is this language to be treated ? We start out with 
 the admission, by all, that there is no mersion in fact, and, 
 on my own responsibility, I add, that there is no mersion in 
 error possible in imagination. What process of interpreta- 
 tion shall be used ? 
 
 The theory says: Convert "error" into a pool of water, 
 and all runs smoothly. Let us see. If we are to have a 
 water-pool, then all its accessories must come along with it. 
 
264 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 We must have something to be dipped. What is it? Is it 
 replied, "the hardness of the age ?" Very welL And now 
 that this "object" is deposited by the pool, pray tell us, as 
 a help to our imagination, what it is like; what is its shape, 
 color, weight, and size? "Error" having been transformed 
 into water, there is now embarrassment in getting "hardness 
 of the age " dipped into it. Into what shall this be transformed 
 to meet the exigency? Into a stone? into a stick of wood? 
 into a lump of iron? That would meet the "hardness" of 
 the age ; but it should not be too large, for then it would be 
 too heavy to be dipped. Shall it be a human being? ]!^ot 
 an infant; that could be dipped, but the theory don't like the 
 baptism of little children. Then let it be a fall-grown adult, 
 and he can help dip himself by that peculiar mode, known 
 to the theory, oi walking into the water. But this Mr. " Hard- 
 ness of the Age " must not walk too far into the water, for 
 while walking will answer for dipping the feet, it will not 
 answer for dipping the head — at least so we are told. Then 
 we must have a dipper. Who shall it be ? Will some friend 
 of the theory answer ? If not, we must apply to old Justin. 
 He says, "sin " is tlie dipper. But " sin " can no more put 
 "hardness of the age" (metamorphosed into a ^'•Mister'") 
 into the water, than "hardness of the age" could get into 
 the water without such metamorphosis. If" Sin " is to offici- 
 ate as a dipper into waier of Mr. " Hardness of the Age," then 
 "Sin" must also take shape. What shall it be? 
 
 " Before the gates there sat 
 On either side a formidable shape : 
 The one seemed woman to the waist and fair, 
 But ended foul in many a scaly fold 
 Voluminous and vast, a serpent arm'd 
 With mortal sting: about her middle round 
 A cry of Hell hounds, never ceasing, bark'd 
 With wide Cerberean mouths full loud, and rung 
 A hideous peal: yet when they list, would creep, 
 If aught disturbed their noise, into her womb. 
 And kennel there, yet there still bark'd and howl'd, 
 Within unseen. . . . and me they caWd Sin! " 
 
 Fearful administratrix this ! But, alas ! none other can 
 
BAPTISM IN THE DEPTH OF ERROR. 265 
 
 officiate at the baptism of the " hardness of the age." We 
 have now got the element, and the object, and the adminis- 
 tratrix. What next? The baptism. What is a baptism? 
 " The complete subjection of an object to the influence of a 
 liquid." (Carson, p. 80.) By what act is this to be secured? 
 Letting pass, now, the impracticable and piebald character 
 of a union of baptism and dipping, I would inquire what is 
 the final result of dipping Mr. Hardness of the Age, by 
 Mistress Sin, into a pool of water ? " He is completely sub- 
 jected to the influence of water." In what respect ? Is he 
 drowned? "No." Is he washed? "jSTo." Is he made very 
 wet? " That depends upon what suit he wore." Well, I do 
 not know what other complete influence of water there is; 
 but make it what you will it is the full influence of water. 
 Then, pray tell us what bearing the full influence of water , 
 brought to bear by "sin," on a "hard age" has to do with 
 the baptism in ^^ error" spoken of by Tertullian? 
 
 Was there ever a greater rhetorical and logical blunder 
 than the conversion of " error" into a pool of water? This 
 " error" of Tertullian is as unalterable as the poles; around 
 it every attendant conception must revolve. It is placed 
 there by the writer as a despot on his throne, and every 
 word must bow down in reverence to his sovereign power. 
 " Sin " and " age " are, also, unalterable words. " Hardness," 
 " heaviest," " depth," " mersion," " in," may all receive 
 modification; but "error," "sin," and "age" must abide. 
 When these words are used with words directly expressive 
 of manifestly impracticable forms, it is equivalent to saying, 
 " Be on your guard ; take out from these words the thought 
 adapted to the case." 
 
 In the phrase — "the age, by sin, is mersed in error" — we 
 see, at a glance, that in its literality there is an impracticable 
 statement. But it comes from an intelligent source, and we 
 know that there is a rational thought in it. We examine 
 the wording and perceive that "age," "sin," and "error" 
 must be fixed quantities. This conclusion compels us to 
 seek a solution of the thought in " mersed in." We glance 
 over its usage in relations where its literal demand is met, 
 
266 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 and mersion, envelopment, intusposition takes place, and 
 nothing more. We take our discovery and apply a mersion- 
 envelopment to solve the difficult}'. But we find that it will 
 not answer.- The nature of" error" is not such as to allow 
 an object to get within it, so as to be enveloped by it. We 
 try again; and find objects " mersed in" a great variety of 
 elements in which, beside the envelopment, there is the 
 additional feature of controlling influence proceeding from 
 the enveloping element over its object, and, farther, that 
 in such cases the envelopment is simply a means to an end. 
 We return with our spoils and try again. Having already 
 found that envelopment is, ex necessitate rei, out of the case, 
 we apply that which is the invariable attendant upon certain 
 mersions, and is the sole end for which certain other mer- 
 sions are sought, namely, controlling influence. The phrase 
 then reads — "the age, by sin, mersed in=siibjeci to the con- 
 trolling injluence of error." "Mersed in" is suggestive of 
 envelopment as the source of the influence; but envelop- 
 ment is not, itself, usable, and we throw it aside for that 
 which is demanded, namely, influence. 
 
 Is not this process simple, intelligible, satisfactory in its 
 results, and harmonious with the laws of language develop- 
 ment? 
 
 " Mersos in caligine^' — " in peceato" — "m blasjohemia" — " in 
 dementia." Souls mersed in darkness — in siii — in blasphemy — 
 in dementia — are other cases of baptism spoken of by Ter- 
 tullian, which demonstrate the ineptness of a water-pool for 
 such baptism. Here are specific influences, most marked 
 in character and most diverse from each other. Mersion in 
 water is not calculated to show forth any one of them; for 
 there is nothing in water influence which resembles spiritual 
 darkness, or sin, or blasphemy, or dementia. If it is said that 
 it is not because of resemblance between the influence of 
 water and these influences that the ]30ol is introduced, but 
 for the sake of the mersion, then the case is, if possible, made 
 worse; for no resemblance can be here, for no intusposition 
 in spiritual darkness, or sin, or blasphemy, or dementia, 
 
ANOTHER KIND OF BAPTISM. 267 
 
 exists in fact, or can exist in conception. There is no mer- 
 eiou in any one element which can shadow forth these varied 
 baptisms. It is impracticable to get a varied element ap- 
 propriate to each. We repudiate, therefore, the whole thing 
 as a search after truth where it is not to be found ; and take 
 the grand feature of controlling influence, uncolored by any 
 specific quality, and submit it for the stamp of character to 
 any and every particular case, whether it be "soul dark- 
 ness," " sin," in general, " blasphemy" in particular, mental 
 " imbecility," or what not. 
 
 If in the development of language any word ever lost an 
 element which was originally characteristic of it, such a word 
 is ^aTZTiZu). And if ever /3d7rrw lost in the course of usage the 
 act of dipping, (originally its grand and sole characteristic,) 
 then, ^aizriZu) has, as certainly, lost in the course of usage the 
 condition of envelopment, which was, originally, its grand and 
 sole characteristic. If the one word came by varied steps 
 of progression to express, directly, dyeing ; the other came, 
 by a similar process, to express, directly, controlling influence. 
 
 " Aliud genus Baptismaiis.'* 
 
 "When Ambrose speaks of "another kind of baptism," he 
 is not speaking, like Justin, of a baptism which, while differ- 
 ing: in nature and in all other attendant features from the 
 mersed axe, still, resembles it in its most essential feature, 
 namely, that of lost condition ; but he speaks of a wholly 
 different kind of baptism from both of these; a baptism 
 which is grounded on the passing of the axe out of a lost 
 condition into a saved condition. If a seal were needed to 
 be afluixed to the tomb of this thrice slain theory of " dipping 
 and nothing but dipping through all Greek literature," we 
 have it here furnished to our hand. The image stamped 
 upon this seal is that of "Ambrose;" the superscription is — ■ 
 "Aliud genus baptismatis." Was anything ever m.ore ut- 
 terly removed from a dipping than the ascent of an axe from 
 the bottom of a river to its surface ? 
 
 But, still more, we have here the most absolute proof that 
 
268 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 it is not act of any kind which characterizes a baptistn, but 
 condition marked by completeness and indefinite continu- 
 ance. Tlie axe hj falling passes into a lost condition caused 
 by enveloping waters. The axe by rising up passes into a 
 saved condition not caused by any enveloping medium. 
 Thus we see that a complete change of condition, without 
 envelopment, is, and is well termed a baptism. Similar 
 baptisms with this latter one may be found in Classic Bap- 
 tism (pp. 325, 829). The first is like this, a baptism of iron ; 
 but of red hoi iron, brought into a condition of coldness by the 
 application of water, without envelopment. The second is 
 a baptism of wine by pouring water into it; by which it 
 passes out of an intoxicating into an unintoxicating condi- 
 tion. It is not true, then, that, even in phj^sical things, an 
 envelopment is essential to a baptism. Completeness of 
 condition, with indefiuiteness of continuance, is essential, in 
 all baptisms, whether physical or unphysical. The axe is 
 brought into a thoroughly saved condition without limitation 
 of time, through the influence of the wood; the hot iron is 
 brought into a thoroughly cold condition through the heat- 
 quenching influence of water, without limitation of time; 
 and the wine is brought into a thoroughly unintoxicant con- 
 dition, without limitation of time, through the attempering 
 influence of water. 
 
 The soul is brought out of one baptism, indefinitely long 
 and i:uinous in its nature, into another baptism, indefinitely 
 long and saving in its nature; both of them without en- 
 velopment. Ambrose is sustained in his views by the ex- 
 tracts from Irenseus and Chrysostom. 
 
 BAPTISM OF POLLUTION. 
 
 Job 9: 30, 81. 
 
 "If I wash myself with snow-water, and make my hands 
 never so clean, 
 
 " Yet shalt thou plunge me in the ditch, and mine own clothes 
 shall abhor me." 
 
BAPTISM BY POLLUTION. 269 
 
 Translation. 
 
 Kai TOTS iv diafOopa /Sanriffsi'^ jie. 
 
 "Even then thou wilt baptize me with pollution." — Aquila. 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 There is no Patristic interpretation of this passage, as a 
 baptism, so far as I know. The usage, here, shows that 
 while the Greek appropriates the word to drunkenness and 
 the Jew to purification, its sphere embraces, no less, sobriety 
 and pollution. Adjuncts qualify. I have given the transla- 
 tion of the passage, as it appears in the Greek version of the 
 Hebrew Scriptures, by Aquila. His translation seems to have 
 been governed more by the moral intent of the passage, than 
 by its wording. Neither ^aTtTiZm nor dtafdopd is a verbal trans- 
 lation of the Hebrew. Yet the spirit of the passage is well 
 represented. Rosenmiiller states it thus: " Quantumvis me 
 purum esse et innocentem ostendere voluero, Deus tamen 
 me impurissimum et injustissimum ostendet (in loc.)." A 
 condition "most impure and most unrighteous," is truly and 
 forcibly represented by — "thou wilt baptize me with pollu- 
 tion " — make me thoroughly polluted. 
 
 It is unusual for the Classics to associate h with the ele- 
 ment within which a mersion takes place. And as it is 
 quite common for Jewish writers to employ this preposition 
 with a dative agency, I have regarded it as so used here. 
 
 The Hebrew verb is used both for dipping and dyeing, 
 or smearing. It is the same as employed in expressing the 
 staining or smearing of Joseph's coat withv blood, and is 
 there translated, in the Septuagint, by a word expressive of 
 this latter sense, and not of a dipping. Introduction into a 
 ditch or pit, containing mud and water, would very thor- 
 oughly "smear with filth." 
 
 The translation by the Septuagint is : 'I/.avwq iv punw fie i^ansac;. 
 Here havwq seems to qualify rather an efifect — that of smear- 
 ing, than an act — that of dipping. The use of ^v instead of 
 sk strengthens the conclusion, that the object was not to be 
 dipped into filth, but to be polluted by it. 
 
270 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 BAPTISM OF DESTEUCTION. 
 
 Psalm 9: 15. 
 "The hea-then are sunk down in the pit that they made." 
 
 Translatioyi. 
 
 i:j3a7ZTt(Td-^(Tav. 
 
 "Demersse sunt gentes in interitu quem fecerunt." — Jerome, 
 ix, 1133. 
 
 Inierpreiaiion. 
 
 The Greek translator who here employs l3a--iX(o to repre- 
 sent the Hebrew word, is unknown, but his translation is 
 discriminatingly made. The Hebrew word is not the same 
 with that which is, almost without exception, translated in 
 the Septuagiut by iSdnTw. 
 
 The Hebrew has two words, 72\D and j/j^, more nearly 
 resembling each other, both in form and in sound, than do 
 ^d-Tuj and l^a-Ti^u). These Hebrew words present the same 
 parallelism of differences, in their usage, with that exhibited 
 by the Greek words, as also with that of the Latin words 
 iingo and mergo, and the English words dq^ and immerse. 
 
 It is obvious that the word in this passage could not pos- 
 sibly be represented by ^dnrco^ or tingo, or dip. Such words 
 not merely fail to represent the sentiment, but they misrep- 
 resent it. They give a contradictory sentiment. What is 
 intended to be profound, the}^ make superficial ; what is in- 
 tended to be thorough, they make trivial; what is intended 
 to issue in a condition unlimited in time of continuance, 
 they make evanescent as the execution of the form of an act. 
 Jerome recognizes all this when he translates — " demersae 
 sunt in interitu — theg were demersed in destruction.'^ 
 
 Gesenius, in speaking of the relation of this word to words 
 in other languages, says: "The primary sjdlable is here DD, 
 which, in the occidental languages, also has the signification 
 ^f depth and of immersing. Compare the Gothic diup, the 
 German tief^ and the English deep.'' 
 
 While the Hebrew, and the Greek, and the Latin, has 
 
BAPTISM OF DESTRUCTION. 271 
 
 eacli two native words to express the two diverse ranges of 
 thought, unhappily the English has not. The former He- 
 brew word, and the Greek ^dnrw^ the Latin iingo, and the 
 Enghsh dip, are as like to each other as though they were 
 all Shaksperian Dromios. 
 
 But when the latter Hebrew word is mated with /ianziZo} and 
 mergo, the English language cannot offer any like-featured, 
 native-born Antilochus, as their counterpart. Hence the 
 embarrassment of translating ^aTtriZu)^ especially in some as- 
 pects of its usage. To remedy this language-deficiency, we 
 have borrowed a word from the Latin, and that, unfortu- 
 nately, in a compound instead of a simple form. But, in 
 borrowing a word, we cannot borrow its varied usage. That 
 is made by the exigencies of a people. And it originates pe- 
 culiarities of meaning among different nations, and among 
 the same people in different ages, in the use of words having 
 the same thought in their first use. Of all influences modi- 
 fying the usage of words, none is more powerful than the 
 religious conceptions of a people. And, of all religions, 
 none can parallel the demand which must be made by a re- 
 vealed religion introducing conceptions to which the minds 
 of men, before, were strangers. Is it surprising, under these 
 circumstances, that there should be some embarrassment in 
 finding a perfect representation, in English, of a Greek word, 
 borrowed out of heathenism, to denote Jewish religious con- 
 ceptions, and then used to convey Christian religious thought, 
 which in some respects was essentially diverse from the Jew- 
 ish? If we have found it necessary to enlarge the language 
 of common life, by borrowing immerse from the Latin, is it 
 strange that we should find no usage among us of this for- 
 eign word which meets the religious application of the Greek 
 word? And who should complain if, instead of forcing a 
 new rfile of duty upon this Latin stranger, we should bor- 
 row, again, for religious usage, baptize from the Greek? 
 
 If, however, the theorists should persist in affirming, that 
 "the suggestion of difficulty in the translation is all a pre- 
 tence," we will maintain our equanimity by gazing on their 
 desperate floundering amid dip, and plunge, and sink, and 
 
272 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 flow, and bathe, and whelm, immerse and immerge, demerge 
 and submerge, and compassionately saying [s(Ato voce), "Poor 
 sufferers, they are baptized in this dark abyss of words, find- 
 ing no standing-place, because their mother tongue gave 
 them no word to rest their foot upon !" 
 
 BAPTISM OF SUFFEEING 
 
 Psalm 69 : 1, 2. 
 
 " Save me, O God! for the waters have come in unto my soul. 
 "I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come 
 into deep waters, where the floods overflow me." 
 
 Translation. 
 
 'E^anriffffTjv el<; dazepavrour; xaTaduffai';, xai oux eari ardaig. 
 " I am baptized into boundless depths, and there is no standing, 
 " I have come into the depths of the waters, and the flood has 
 overflowed me." — Symmachus. 
 
 ^EveTzdpjv eiq D.ov (ju6ou . . . xai xaraiy\q xarsTZOvTiai fie. 
 
 " I am brought into the mud of the abyss, and there is no stand- 
 ing-place under me. 
 
 "I have come into the depths of the sea, and a tempest has 
 engulfed me." — Septuagint. 
 
 "Infixus sum in limo profundi . . . et tempestas demersit me." 
 "I am infixed in the mud of the deep, and there is no solid 
 
 ground. I have come into the depth of the sea, and the tempest 
 
 has demersed me." — Jerome, v, 468. 
 
 Inierpretaiion. 
 
 The Hebrew word, with which we have to do in this pas- 
 sage, is the same as in the passage just considered. It is, 
 therefore, well represented by (iaTz-ciZm. It could, by no pos- 
 sibility, be represented by /JaTrrw. 
 
 The Septuagint does not use (ian-riZu) in translating, but it 
 repudiates ^ditroi by employing a word which brings its ob- 
 ject into a changed condition, where there is certainly every 
 
BAPTISM OF SUFFERING. 273 
 
 opportunity for a complete influence to be exerted over it, 
 cmd leaves it there. In other words, the substitute does every- 
 thing which the principal would have done. It performs a 
 baptism just as well as /3a7rr:t<" could have done, and, in ad- 
 dition, is so complaisant as to tell us how it was done, on 
 which point /Sa^rrc'Cw is ever dumb with silence. The mode 
 used in this case is the same as that used by the theorists, 
 who bring into the water their disciples, but who strangely 
 say, that "this is not baptism, it is only immersion." And 
 what is baptism? "Baptism is the dipping of the nobler 
 part (head and shoulders), with invocation of the Trinity." 
 Indeed! I thought that the new version of the theory was, 
 that "baptism was immersion, and that immersion was bap- 
 tism;" but it seems that "immersion" has a non-religious 
 meaning, "bringing" the more ignoble part of the body 
 "into the water;" while "baptism" has a religious mean- 
 ing, bringing tVie more noble part of the human form into 
 the water, by dipping and invocation. It seems then, after 
 all, that the Latin-English word has a vulgar meaning, and 
 that the Greek will find his way into the religious vocabulary. 
 The translation by Jerome says nothing about the mode 
 in which the baptism was accomplished; neither does he 
 translate by mer^o expressing condition; but he employs a 
 word which gives position to the baptized object. This posi- 
 tion ^dizTUi could never give, (for it can give " position " to 
 nothing, as dipping is an unresting movement,) but iSanTt^aj 
 (primary,) always gives position to its object together with 
 condition, which position and condition are " fixed," as Je- 
 rome says, until some foreign influence shall disturb them. 
 
 Figure. 
 
 Those friends of ours who have been so often chidden for 
 stretching out their dipping-wand toward every object in 
 air, and earth, and sea, and under the sea, to transmute it 
 into figure, may here feast on figure, unforbidden — should it 
 prove to their liking. 
 
 Dr. Carson, after waiting by the sea-coast twelve hours, 
 watching 'he flow and reflow of its tidal waves, exclaims, 
 
 18 
 
274 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 " Figure ! covered and bare, a dipping." David is now in 
 a "covered" condition of baptism; he wishes to be made 
 " bare." "What help can the theory bring him ? If he is 
 undergoing a dipping merely, his "covering" will last but a 
 moment. If he is dipped catachrestically by the ocean tide, 
 he will be made " bare," certainly, in twelve hours. But 
 David has gone down to the bottom of the sea, and he is 
 there " infixed in its mud." Will it be of much comfort to 
 say to such a one — " You are only baptized, and to baptize 
 is to dip and nothing but dip through all Greek literature ; 
 and to dip is to cover and make bare; therefore, don't be 
 discouraged, you will soon be un-dipped." Whether these 
 comforting words were drowned in the roaring of the stormy 
 billows, or not, I cannot undertake to sny; but they do not 
 seem to have given David much comfort. In the anguish 
 of his imperilled and helpless condition he cries, " Save me, 
 God, for the waters have come in unto my soul ! " Because 
 baptism in water is, of its own proper force, deadly, David 
 employs it in figure to express his condition, by reason of 
 troubles, as one that must speedily issue in his destruction, 
 without Divine intervention. 
 
 The theorist who would convert this baptism into a dip- 
 ping must either transcend, beyond all measuring-lines, the 
 wisdom of the Son of David, or fall so far below, that, — 
 well, he should not use too hot words in " sending Gabriel to 
 school," if that angel should modestly enter a caveat against 
 a too dogmatic enunciation of " the theory." 
 
 BAPTISM OF SINCEKITT. 
 Canticles 5 : 12. 
 
 " His eyes are as the eyes of doves, by the rivers of waters, 
 washed with milk and fitly set." 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 " Baptizat in lacte Dominus, id est, in Sinceritate. Et isti 
 sunt qui vere baptizantur in lacte, qui sine dolo credunt, et 
 
BAPTISM OF SINCERITY. 275 
 
 puram fidem deferunt, ut immaculatam induant gratiam. Ideo 
 Candida Sponsa ascendit ad Christum; quia in lacte baptizata 
 est." 
 
 " The Lord baptizes with milk, that is, with Sincerity. And 
 they are those who ai'e truly baptized with milk, who believe 
 without hypocrisy, and offer a pure faith, that they may put 
 on unspotted grace. Therefore the Spouse ascends to Christ 
 clothed in white, because she was baptized with milk." — Am- 
 brose, ii, 1431. 
 
 " Denique de ipsa anima dicitur : Quce est hcec, quee ascendit 
 dealbata (Cant. 8:5)? Antequam baptizaretur, ipsa est quae 
 dicebat: Nigra sum — Erat enim nigra, tenebrosa, peccatorum 
 horrore deformis : sed postea . . . dealbata." . . . 
 
 "Finally, it is said of the soul, itself: 'Who is this, that 
 ascends made white V It is the same that said, before baptism, 
 *I am black.' . . . For it was black, gloomy, and deformed by 
 the dreadfulness of sin ; but after that, having been cleansed by 
 baptism, it merited the remission of sins; made white it ascends 
 to Christ." — Ambrose, i, 875. 
 
 Translation. 
 
 I have translated " in lacte," with milk, 1. Because the 
 Patrists use the preposition in this sense, times v^ithout 
 number. 2. Because it is a baptism of the soul, and there- 
 fore could not be " in milk." 3. Because the baptizer is the 
 Lord, who never baptizes in milk, or in water, or in any other 
 physical substance. 
 
 The use of the term "milk" is purely formal, suggested 
 by the use in the text, and is not designed to carry the 
 thought over to a physical fluid, but to the " sincere rnilk of 
 the word." Irenseus (931), speaking of the corrupters of 
 divine truth, likens them to those who mix gypsum with 
 water and offer it for milk, deceiving through the similarity 
 of color, and adds : " In Dei lacte gypsum male miscetur. 
 It is a bad thing to mix gypsum (error) with God's milk 
 (truth)." On the next page, Irenseus shows, most unmis- 
 takably, the use of the preposition "in," as here translated. 
 
 "In Christi, enim, nomine subauditur qui unxit, et ipse qui 
 unctus est, et ipsa unctio in qua unctus est. Et unxit quidem 
 
276 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Pater, unctus est vero Filius, in Spiritu, qui est unctio . . . 
 significaus et iinguentem Patrem, et unctum Filium, et unc- 
 tionem, qui est Spiritus." If it is contrary to all reason to 
 say, that the" Messiah was inducted into his Kingly, Priestly, 
 and Prophetical offices, by being anointed i?i, and not with, 
 the anointing oil — that the Father anointed the Son in, not 
 with the Spirit — then it is " contrary to all reason " to deny 
 that the usage claimed does truly exist. And here, as sug- 
 gested by this anointing, I may quote a passage from a more 
 modern writer, contained in a note in Cyril of Jerusalem 
 (597) — '* refert eos non in aqua, sed in oleo baptizasse. Id 
 Priscillianistis in Hispania forsan peculiare — he relates that 
 they baptized, not ivith water, but with oil. This, perhaps, 
 was peculiar to the Priscillianists in Spain." If it is not 
 likely that any persons dipped, or immersed, men and wo- 
 men in oil (!), then it is likely that "in" means " with," 
 and, rejecting water, these heretics were "baptized with 
 oil." Besides, we are told (1075), that the Greek churches 
 anointed the whole body with oil (ex oleo), while the Latin 
 churches anointed only parts of the body, and, especially, 
 " in Spain only the ears and the mouth — in Hispania aures et 
 OS." N^ow, I cannot say whether these " Spanish" heretics 
 followed the practice of the Greek church, or of the Latin, in 
 their use of oil in baptism, but in neither case would they 
 find a dipping into oil. 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 Milk is used (verbally) in this baptism as the fit symbol 
 of sincerity. It is not employed because it was adapted for 
 dipping, but because of its color ; just as snow is referred to 
 in Scripture because of its whiteness. Milk could not be 
 used because of its cleansing qualities; for it is not so used 
 in fact, nor is it, by its nature, adapted to such use. It is 
 perfectly adapted by its uncolored color to represent unadul- 
 terated sincerity. " The Lord baptizes with milk, that is 
 with sincerity, into unspotted grace." In any case it will be 
 observed, that this baptism is intended to set forth simply 
 and solely a complete change of condition. This is strikingly 
 
BAPTISM OF REPENTANCE. 277 
 
 Bet forth by Ambrose in the second quotation. Before this 
 baptism the soul is " black," afterwards it is " made white." 
 The Lord is the baptizer; the absence of hypocrisy and the 
 presence of a pure faith is the means, and the patting on of 
 unspotted grace is the new, changed, baptized condition. 
 
 This condition is not capable of being represented by an 
 evanescent dipping, nor a momentary covering; but is of un- 
 limited continuance. 
 
 Whether "the Great Baptizer" emplo3's " milk," or "the 
 flaming sword," to effect his baptism, he brings all who are 
 the subjects of it into a thoroughly changed condition, which, 
 in its nature, has no limitation of time for its continuance, 
 and which no foreign influence can change. Until some one 
 can be found, mightier than he, to undo what he has done — 
 able " to pluck those whom the Father has given him out 
 of his hand " — the baptism of the Lord will bring his people 
 into a condition of holy purity which shall never, no never, 
 have an end. 
 
 BAPTISM OF KEPENTANCE. 
 Isaiah 1 : 16, 17. 
 
 " Wash ye, make you clean; put away the evil of your doings 
 from before mine eyes; cease to do evil; 
 
 "Learn to do well; seek judgment; relieve the oppressed; 
 judge the fatherless ; plead for the widow." 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 Aia TOO Xourpdb, oov t^? iieTavo\a<z xai rrj^ yvwffewq too Oeou, o . . . . 
 
 8 TzpoT^yopaue rb ^dnrcfffia Tc yap d(psX(K Ixeivoo ^anriffpaTog, 8 
 
 .... BaTzriffOTjTS rijv (/'u^ijv dizo opyrji;, xal gtto 
 
 "Through the washing of repentance and of the knowledge 
 of God, which was established on account of the transgression 
 of the people of God, as Isaiah declares, we have believed and 
 make known that this very baptism which he foreannounced is 
 the only one able to cleanse the repenting; this is the water of 
 hfe. 
 
 "But the cisterns which you have dug out for yourselves are 
 
278 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 broken and are useless to you. For of what use is that baptism 
 which cleanses the flesh and the body only ? Baptize the soul 
 from anger, and from covetousness, and from envy, and from 
 hate, and behold the body is pure." — Justin Martyr, 504, 
 
 Ka6u)q (pri<7v/ Haaiac;, Aouffaffh — ^"/^ec, dyanyjTs, Tzwq Ttpoelnev 6 npofrJTtjq 
 TO rod ^aTtriffiiaTo^ xaSaptrcov ; 
 
 " As Isaiah says, ' Wash ye ' . Dost thou see, beloved, how 
 
 the prophet declared beforehand the purifying character of this 
 baptism ?" — Sippolytus, 860. 
 
 " Ziavamini, mundi estate. Pro superioribus victimis, et . . . . 
 Evangelii mihi placet religio: ut baptizimini in sanguine meo per 
 lavacrum regenerationis, quod solum potest peccata dimittere." 
 
 " Wash ye, he clean. Instead of former victims, and burnt- 
 offerings, and the fat of fed beasts, and the blood of bulls and 
 of goats : and instead of incense, and new moons, the Sabbath, 
 feast and fast days, Kalends and other solemnities, the religion 
 of the Gospel pleases mej that ye may be baptized by my blood 
 through the washing of regeneration, which alone can take away 
 sins." — Jerome, iv, 35. 
 
 BAPTISM OF THE BODY AND OF THE SOUL. 
 
 Two baptisms are here expressly mentioned by Justin: 
 1. Baptism of the body. 2. Baptism of the soul. The theory 
 remorselessly insists that the body must be dipped in fact, 
 and that the soul must be dipped in imagination. For the 
 word means nothing but dip and undergoes no change when 
 used in figure. 
 
 Carson says, (in capitals,) " My position is, that it always 
 
 SIGNIFIES TO dip; NEVER EXPRESSING ANYTHING BUT MODE'* 
 
 (p. 55). He also says (p. 57), " I undertake to prove it has 
 but one meaning. I blame him for giving different mean- 
 ings when there is no real difference in the meaning of this 
 word. He assigns to it figurative meanings. I maintain 
 that in figures there is no different meaning of the word. 
 It is only a figurative application. The meaning of the word 
 is always the same." Dr. Carson has got into such an in- 
 veterate habit of boxing everybody's ears, that it is not at 
 all strange that occasionally, his hand should be brought 
 
BAPTISM OF THE BODY AND OF THE SOUL. 279 
 
 down somewhat heavily upon his own. Read alongside of 
 the preceding, this, "Aristophanes says: '■Lest I dip you into 
 a Sardian dye.' The figure is but low, and is just the same 
 as if a pugilist with us should say, I loill dip you in vermilion. 
 It is an allusion to the dyer's art, and means I will beatyou^ 
 till you shall be covered all over ivith your own blood. It would 
 be to no purpose to allege that when a man is beaten, he is 
 not literally dipped in his blood, but the blood runs over him. 
 This would indicate a total misconception of the figure. The 
 likeness does not consist in the manner but in the effects. I 
 will dip you in vermilion, is exactly the expression of the poet 
 in English. He would be a sorry critic, who, from this, 
 should allege that the English word dip signifies to run oveVy 
 as blood from the wounded body." 
 
 We had just been told that (^aTzriZw means to dip, and that 
 it and every other word in figure undergoes no change of 
 meaning, but " the meaning is always the same." And now, 
 in a case of declared figure, we have written down in obedience 
 to the law, " dip," but only to have it scratched out by being 
 told, that it is neither in the figure of fact or of imagination ; 
 that in fact the action is "run over," and that "the meaning 
 is I will beat you ;" and that while there is "allusion to the 
 dyer's art," the dyer's act of dipping has nothing whatever 
 to do with the interpretation. To introduce it would be 
 "a total misconception of the figure." ]^ow, if under this 
 manipulation both of Dr. Carson's ears do not tingle, it must 
 be because those side appendages are in his case missing. 
 
 Self-contradiction as to theory and practice, could not be 
 more gross. 
 
 The passage exhibits the same gross errors of translation 
 and of interpretation, (with the addition of self-contradic- 
 tion,) with those of which he convicted Dr. Gale, and for 
 which he pulled his ears so lustily. Gale says, the lake must 
 be dipped in the blood of a frog, because my theory says, the 
 word has but one meaning, and is the same literal or figura- 
 tive. Carson flouts at the statement as an unheard of para- 
 dox based on a misunderstanding of the word and the syntax. 
 And yet, he falls into the same identical errors in misunder- 
 
280 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 standing the word and the syntax ; and thus, is led by theory 
 to introduce a dipping, while, with unparental hardness, he 
 rejects his offspring as having no claim, even under the 
 wildest imagination, to his sympathies. Under the influence 
 of an impracticable case, the omnipresent dipping has dis- 
 appeared, and in figure an act ceases to exist, and " the like- 
 ness does not consist in the manner but in the effects." 
 
 Dr. C.'s Ttpwrov (p£u8oq does not consist in the position, that 
 words in true and pure figure have the same meaning as in 
 literal use, but in overlooking what he had pointed out to 
 Gale, the secondary meaning of ^dntu). The remembrance 
 of this would have saved him from the error of supposing 
 that there was any figure in the passage. It would, also, 
 have saved him from the necessity of violating syntactical 
 law (Klihuer, p. 403) respecting a double accusative. And 
 this would have saved him from misleading the confiding 
 English reader by the statement, ^^ I will dip you in verjnilion, 
 is exactly the expression in English." The English counter- 
 part of the Greek has in it neither a " dip " nor an " in," 
 but is simply literal, "I will dye you a Sardian dye," or "I 
 will color jQ)U. a Sardian color." 
 
 It is, precisely, these same errors which vitiate, from first 
 to last, the writings of the theorists on the subject of bap- 
 tism. They insist that fianrt^^o) has but one meaning, that it 
 has the same meaning in figurative as in literal use, and that 
 all cases where there is no dipping in fact, must be cases of 
 figure. But when they are pointed to cases where no dip- 
 ping is conceivable by imagination, or the attempt intro- 
 duces a picture so grotesque, that even their rhetorical sense 
 is shocked, why then we are told (to the baldest stultifica- 
 tion of their theory) " the likeness does not consist in the 
 manner, but in the effects." What has a theory to do with 
 " effects," whose alpha and omega is the performance of a 
 naked act ? Is not the use of a word (expressive originally 
 of an act) which is based on effects, a secondary and not a 
 figurative use of such word? Is not ^dnrw^ to dye, based on 
 the effects oi ^d.T.rw^ to dip, and is not such use secondary and 
 diverse from the former? And, yet, we are told that while 
 
BAPTISM OF THE BODY AND OF THE SOUL. 281 
 
 ^SaTzri^u) means " to dip, and nothing but dip," and has a usage 
 based on, not the act, but the effects of the act, still it has no 
 secondary use, and " means nothing else, through all Greek 
 literature, but dip, and nothing but dip." 
 
 When Dr. Cox sought relief from the manner of IsTebu- 
 chadnezzar's dipping in the dew, he says: "It does not imply 
 the manner in which the effect was produced, but the effect 
 itself; not the mode by which the body of the king was 
 wetted, but its condition^ as resulting from exposure to the 
 dew of heaven." To this Carson (who assumes the office 
 of whipping in his friends, when they overstep theory, and 
 enter the region of truth) replies: "About what is he con- 
 tending? Without doubt, the verb expresses mode here as 
 well as anywhere else. To suppose the contrary, gives up 
 the point at issue, as far as mode is concerned. ... It does 
 
 not literally include wetting, at all Mode is as much 
 
 expressed here as it is in the commission of our Lord to his 
 apostles." Thus, dip^ which literally expresses no "effect" 
 — not even the "wetting," when it carries its object into 
 water — but merely a naked act, and which, in figure, means 
 nothing, more or less, still, in figure, is to be understood as 
 laying aside all "manner," and to be interpreted solely by 
 its " effects !" 
 
 This teacher of Gale, and Cox, and the Archangel Gabriel, 
 is a study. 
 
 The "flesh and body" baptism, of which Justin speaks, 
 is called "baptism," not because of resemblance of any act 
 performed in its accomplishment to any other act done, but 
 because of resemblance to certain classes of baptism charac- 
 terized by controlling influence. This influence proceeded 
 from the ritual use of the blood of bulls and goats, and the 
 ashes of a heifer, and effected a Judaic baptism — the com- 
 plete ceremonial purification of the body. 
 
 The "soul" baptism was not limited to the Jew. It was 
 preached to the Jew, as Justin declares, by Isaiah, but it 
 reaches over to the Christian. The " Martyr " says that he 
 had received this baptism "through [Sta) the washing of re- 
 pentance and the knowledge of God." Repentance and the 
 
282 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 knowledge of God do this washing. Such agencies do thor- 
 ough work. They patronize no dipping-bath. They thor- 
 oughly change the condition of the soul — as soap, a rough 
 towel, and hard friction, change that of the body — "wash- 
 ing it from anger, and covetousness, and envy, and hate." 
 And this thoroughly changed condition, is baptism of the 
 soul, to which Isaiah calls the Jew. 
 
 This baptism, " hy repentance and the knowledge of God," 
 leads to the notice of the essential difference between bap- 
 tism m, and baptism by, anything. The former phrase is 
 expressive of local position, the latter is expressive only of 
 complete influence. To illustrate : "A greasy fleece is dip- 
 ped in a dye-vat, but it is not dipped by it." Is there any 
 contradiction here ? Does not the difference of phraseology 
 clearly indicate a different sense in the words? The first 
 dip announces the form of act by which the object is put 
 into the dye, and the second 6ne declares that the object 
 was not influenced by the dye. This was the phraseology 
 used by the Greeks, and was as intelligible to them as 
 "dipped in, but noi dyed by," would be to us. Christian 
 missionaries are said "to live immersed in the sins of hea- 
 thenism, but not to be immersed by them." The one expres- 
 sion is exhausted by expressing position without influence, 
 and the other, influence without position. These truths 
 may be stated in a reverse form. The hand may be dipped 
 by (the juice of a berry), aud not be dipped in (the juice of a 
 berry). A man may be immersed by sin (solitary vice), and 
 not be immersed in sin (iniquity abounding). Hot iron may 
 be immersed (quenched) by water, and not be immersed in 
 water. A man may be baptized (iutusposition) in wine, and 
 not be baptized (made drunk) by wine. A man may be bap- 
 tized (made drunk) by wine, and not be baptized (iutusposi- 
 tion) in wine. 
 
 These diversities of phraseology are constantly met with 
 in the Classics. And it is as certain that they express dif- 
 ferences of meaning, as that words are used to express 
 thought, and not, according to the Prince Bishop of Autun, 
 " to hide thought." 
 
BAPTISM OF THE BODY AND OF THE SOUL. 283 
 
 Jerome well understood this distinction, when he speaks, 
 in the quotation made, of baptism by the blood of Christ — 
 ut baptizimini' in sanguine meo. " In," being here used, as 
 in numberless cases, with the agency. Had all the scoffing 
 murderers of the Crucified been baptized in his blood (as a 
 fluid element), they would none the more have been bap- 
 tized by his blood (received with " repentance and the knowl- 
 edge of God "), which cleanses from all sin. 
 
 A word or two, before leaving this passage, with reference 
 to the special evidence Dr. C. draws from it for a dipping. 
 " He speaks of baptism as cleansing the flesh and the body 
 only; this shows that the water was applied to the body in 
 general" (p. 490). So far from showing the manner or ex- 
 tent of using water, it does not show the use of water at all. 
 Justin is speaking of Jewish rites as only competent to effect 
 the ceremonial purification of the body, leaving the soul un- 
 purified. He refers to the sprinkling of blood, or heifer 
 ashes, or any other thing competent to induce this condition. 
 There was no dipping of the body into water enjoined by 
 Jewish ritual law. Nothing is more certain than that, in 
 Jewish rites, a sprinkling cleansed the entire " flesh and 
 body." An argument is drawn from the mention of cis- 
 terns: " He speaks of it, also, as referring to cisterns or pits, 
 as trenches that are dug. It must, then, have been an im- 
 mersion." This is another of those marvellous errors of 
 conception and representation, to which a wrong theory con- 
 stringes its disciples. 
 
 When Jehovah, by Jeremiah, says: "My people have com- 
 mitted two evils; they have forsaken me, the fountain of living 
 waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that 
 can hold no water," does he complain that they have " dug 
 pits and trenches to dip themselves in, but which have failed 
 of their purpose because the bottom had fallen out?" Just 
 as certainly as that Justin means any such thing by his ref- 
 erence to this passage. Jehovah is "the fountain of living 
 waters," not to dip in, but whence the soul may derive bless- 
 ing, even life for evermore; while human devices, or divinely 
 appointed ritual rites, abused, in being used for other purposes 
 
284 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 than those designed, are "broken cisterns," to which men 
 apply, in vain, for blessing which accompanies salvation. 
 
 The Lord and his "Martyr" teach the same thing: Jew- 
 ish rites, at the best, can but effect ceremonial purification; 
 it is "the water of life" (repentance and the knowledge of 
 God) which "baptizes the soul from anger, covetousness, 
 envy, and hate." Justin has no reference to a dry dipping 
 in a "broken" cistern; although Dr. Carson thinks that all 
 Israel received a " dry baptism " in passing through the sea. 
 
 BAPTISM BY INIQUITY. 
 Isaiah 21 : 4. 
 
 "My heart panted, fearfulness affrighted: the night of my 
 pleasure hath he turned into fear unto me." 
 
 Sejptuagint. 
 
 ^ xapdia fiou TtXavarai^ xal ij avofxla ixe ^anri^si^ -q (pw/^TJ ixou i(l'iff- 
 
 "My heart wanders; iniquity baptizes me; my soul is put 
 into fear." 
 
 BAPTISM BY INIQUITY. 
 
 This passage has presented no little embarrassment to the 
 translator and interpreter, because of want of verbal accord 
 with the Hebrew, and because of a failure in the just appre- 
 ciation of the word. 
 
 Dr. Edward Williams translates, "Iniquity pours me." 
 Translation by this modal word must, like modal dip^ fail 
 through lack of support in usage. Prof. Ewing says: "The 
 subject of baptism is viewed as having something poured or 
 brought upon him." 
 
 Gale, Halley, Wilson, Stuart, and others, translate, "Ini- 
 quity overwhelms me." Conant, "Iniquit}' whelms me." 
 
 This wide consent to the introduction of "overwhelm" as 
 the translation of a certain class of baptisms must have sub- 
 
BAPTISM BY INIQUITY. 285 
 
 stantial ground to rest upon. Be that ground, however, 
 what it may, it can have most obviously no sympathy with 
 a dijjping. 
 
 The theorists do not translate such cases by '' immerse," 
 because its primary meaning does not answer; and because 
 its secondary meaning, to be earnestly engaged, as, " I am so 
 immersed in business that I can attend to nothing else," 
 answers just as badly. "Immerse" has no well-established 
 secondary usage expressive of a controlling influence im- 
 parted. In this respect it fails in parallelism with the Greek 
 word. " Overwhelm " has a secondar}^ meaning derived from 
 primary use which adapts it, in the absence of a more per- 
 fect word, for use in such cases. Still, as overwhelm and 
 ySccTTTtCw do not represent the same form of thought in primary 
 use, so, neither do they in the derived, secondary use. The 
 object which is placed by the Greek word in a condition of 
 intusposition is the quiet and unresisting recipient of in- 
 fluence from the encompassing medium, which seeks to in- 
 terpenetrate it at all points. An object which is overwhelmed 
 is brought into that condition, only, in consequence of its 
 resistance (active or passive) having been overcome by some 
 assailing agency. In accordance with these elements the 
 Greek word, in secondary use, is expressive of the reception 
 of influence which controls condition; while the English 
 word, in secondary use, carries with it an assailing power 
 which triumphs by overcoming resistance, active or passive. 
 
 Hannibal overcame all difficulties, and came over the 
 Alps. Is " overcame," here, used in figure, or does it ex- 
 press thought directly? The swollen river whelmed over 
 the bridge and overwhelmed the structure. Is this tautol- 
 ogy? Is not the thought in "overwhelmed" essentially 
 diverse from that in "whelmed over?" In the latter, the 
 sentiment is exhausted by the physical condition of the 
 bridge as covered by the rising and flowing waters; in the 
 former word there is nothing to do with the covered con- 
 dition of the bridge, except as a means to an end; and that 
 which the other word throws not a ray of light upon, (the 
 effect produced on the structure,) this states, and it is all 
 
286 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 which it states. This is its meaning. A meaning which the 
 other form had not. And it is a meaning which has a life 
 of its own, and is capable of being applied in any suitable 
 case where there is no whelming flood present or conceiv- 
 able. As, " the blow overwhelmed me." 
 
 " The troops came whelming over the ramparts and over- 
 whelmed all opposition." " Whelming" is, here, clearl}' fig- 
 ure; the resemblance of men thronging upon, rising above, 
 and passing over walls, to flowing Avaters rising above and 
 flowing over obstacles, is clear and vivid. On the other 
 hand, it is just as certain that " overwhelmed" is not figure ; 
 but expresses, directly, an efiect wholly diff'erent in nature 
 from the other. The resistance made by the garrison is not 
 represented as overcome by a flood; but by the fighting 
 after the walls were flooded by the troops. Napoleon was 
 over-mastered, over-come, over-thrown, over-powered, over- 
 whelmed, at Waterloo, by English and Prussian power. 
 Each of these words expresses a thought directly without 
 picture figure, and generically the same thought, to wit, a 
 resisting power subdued by a stronger power. In each case 
 there is a coloring from the source whence the word springs; 
 but each has a meaning distinct from its original. 
 
 " Overwhelm" represents yJaTrrtt"' in its controlling power, 
 but not in its shade-color of resistance overcome. The Greek 
 word, in this respect, belongs to the class of words repre- 
 sented by sieejp^ imbue, &c. The influence which it exerts is 
 quiet in its operation, penetrating in its nature, pervading 
 in its extent, and controlling in its power. 
 
 Those friends of the theory who, in this baptism of in- 
 iquity, turn coldly away from "dip," and have no friendly 
 recognition even for a " transient covering," but call lustily 
 on overwhelm to come to their help, ought certainly to aban- 
 don or reconstruct their conceptions of a word which stands 
 them so little in stead in the time of need. Dr. Carson, 
 however, has not lost a jot of courage or confidence. His 
 exposition of this baptism, laid alongside of "my position," 
 leads one to marvel at the mental phenomenon presented. 
 
 This is his language (p. 86) : " The expression, iniquity 
 
BAPTISM BY INIQUITY. 287 
 
 ' baptizeth me,' does not mean that iniquity comes on him 
 either hy popping or dipping, either by pouring or sprinkling: 
 but that his sin, which originated in himself, and never was 
 put on him in any mode, sunk him in misery. Our iniquities 
 cause us to sink in deep waters. This example is, with all 
 others in which the word occurs, whether in its literal or 
 figurative use, completely in our favor. Iniquity is the bap- 
 tizer, and instead of popping the subjects of its baptism, 
 would sink them eternally in the lake that burnetii with fire 
 and brimstone, were they not delivered by that which is 
 represented in the baptism of Christians." 
 
 If Dr. Carson had r.epeated the Multiplication Table back- 
 wards in proof of — " My position is, that it always signi- 
 fies TO dip; never expressing anything but mode," — "I 
 maintain, that in figures there is no difterent meaning of 
 the word," — it would have been as creditable to him intel- 
 lectually, and less damaging to his cause logically. For, to 
 say that 12 times 12 making 144 proves, that " [■ianziZio signifies 
 to dip both in fact and in figure," is only to adduce strangely 
 irrelevant proof; but to adduce, as proof that ^anriZut means 
 to dip, a case in which it is declared to mean "to sink," is to 
 bring not irrelevant testimony, but simple and absolute dis- 
 proof. And to adduce in proof of a dip)ping (" covered and 
 bare "), the " sinking of souls eternally in the lake that burneth 
 with fire and brimstone," can only make the world stare at 
 the vagaries of a distraught intellect. 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 The general interpretation of this passage must be regu- 
 lated by the capture of Babylon, to which it relates. And 
 particular words or phrases may receive valuable light from 
 particular facts of that transaction. There is no fact in the 
 case which the divine record places in such bold relief as 
 Belshazzar's feast; that was the crowning "iniquity" in 
 which Jehovah was blasphemed and defied. And in that 
 feast its culmination presents to view a/royal figure gazing 
 on the wall — "his countenance changed, his thoughts troub- 
 ling, the joints of his loins loosed, and his knees smiting 
 
288 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 one against another," — his sins have found him out, and 
 " iniquity is baptizing him" with dire alarm. 
 
 The prophet is understood to speak as a Babylonian. And 
 whom could he so aptly represent as the King of the Baby- 
 lonians? And what language could more literally set forth 
 the condition of Belshazzar, as he is passing through his 
 baptism, in gazing upon the writing and hearing its inter- 
 pretation, than that of the prophet, — " M}^ loins are filled 
 with pain; pangs have taken hold upon me; I was dismayed 
 at the seeing of it? " This is the baptism of Iniquity. " Con- 
 science makes cowards of all." And on " that night in which 
 he was slain," conscience, aroused by the Spirit of that God 
 against whom " he had lifted up himself," causeth his in- 
 iquiti-es to take hold upon him, and he is baptized with un- 
 utterable terror. To introduce here a dipping, or sinking 
 in deep waters, is impertinent bathos. 
 
 As the Septuagint differs wholly [ad verbum, yet not ad 
 sensum) from the Hebrew, it gives fit occasion to point out 
 the unreliability of Dr. Carson's principle in interpreting 
 the language of the Septuagint used in connection with the 
 baptism of Kaaman. He says, (p. 315,) " That the Greek 
 word signifies dip, is clear from the fact that this is the mean- 
 ing of the word in the original." The meaning of the word 
 in the original of the passage under consideration is affright, 
 and the translation is ^anri^w. Will Dr. C. vindicate his rea- 
 soning by saying, " That the Greek word signifies affright, 
 is clear from the fact that this is the meaning of the word in 
 the original?" The theorists throw their mantle of univo- 
 calism over a great many words on which it fits but queerly; 
 is this one of them ? 
 
 Identity of meaning between original and translated words 
 is a sandy principle for a controversialist to build upon. 
 
 While this passage declares that dip and transient cover- 
 ing have neither part nor lot in it, it declares, as unmistak- 
 ably, that completeness of condition is exhaustive of its thought 
 to the very last element. 
 
 Iniquity baptizes, — i. e., brings me into a complete con- 
 dition of " terror," as shown by the case, and the context. 
 
RED SEA BAPTISM. 289 
 
 Very similar in form is, "Potatio quae mergit" — "The drink 
 which merses," brings into a complete condition "of drunk- 
 enness.'' Neither " iniquity" nor "wine" dips its subjects 
 into water, shallow or deep. 
 
 The true usage of ^anriZw destroys the theory as utterly as 
 if it were sunk eternally in that lake of which Dr. Carson 
 speaks. 
 
 BAPTISM AND MIEACLE. 
 
 "We come now to the consideration of a very interesting 
 group of baptisms. They are caused by, or accompanied 
 with, divine power miraculously displayed. In no one of 
 them, is there either a "dipping" or a "temporary cover- 
 ing." In all of them there is a controlling influence, effect- 
 ing a complete change of condition, characterized by indef- 
 initely prolonged continuance : this latter feature being as 
 essential to the conception of a baptism as the former; while 
 modal action, as such, of any kind, never, under any circum- 
 stances, has anything to do with effecting a baptism. The 
 presence or absence of any particular form of action is, alike, 
 a matter of indifference. These baptisms leave " the theory " 
 a perfect cajput moriuum. 
 
 EED SEA BAPTISM, 
 Exodus 14 : 19, 21, 28, 31. 
 
 " And the angel of God, which went before the camp of Israel, 
 removed and went behind them ; and the pillar of cloud went 
 from before their face, and stood behind them. 
 
 "And Moses stretched out his hand over the sea; and the 
 Lord caused the sea to go back by a strong east wind all that 
 night, and made the sea dry land, and the waters were divided. 
 
 "And the waters returned and covered the chariots and the 
 horsemen and all the host of Pharaoh that came into the sea 
 after themj there remained not so much as on^e of themv 
 
 19 
 
290 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 " And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon 
 the Egyptians; and the people feared the Lord and believed the 
 Lord and his servant Moses." 
 
 Inierpreiaiion. 
 
 "Deinde legimus quia in virtute sua magna, et brachio suo 
 excelso, populum suum de terra ^gypti liberavit, quando tra- 
 duxit eum per mare Eubrum, in quo fecit figura baptismatis." 
 
 "Afterward we read that by his great power and his high 
 arm, he liberated his people from the land of Egypt, when he 
 led them through the Eed Sea, in which was a figure of bap- 
 tism." — Ambrose, i, 867. 
 
 "Deniqueet ipse Moyses dicit in cantico: ' Misisti Spiritum 
 suum, et aperuit eos mare.' (Exod. 15 : 10.) Advertis quod in 
 illo Hebrseorum transitu jam tunc sacri baptismatis figura prae- 
 cesserit, in quo ^gyptius interiit, et Hebraeus evasit. Quid 
 enim aliud in hoc quotidie sacramento doceraur, nisi quia culpa 
 mergitur et error aboletur; pietas autem et innocentia tuta per- 
 mansit." 
 
 " Finally, even Moses himself says in his song : ' Thou didst 
 send forth thy Spirit and opened for them the sea.' (Ex. 15 : 10.) 
 Observe that in that passage of the Hebrews, even then, a fig- 
 ure of sacred baptism went before, in which the Egyptian per- 
 ished and the Hebrew escaped. For what else, in this daily 
 sacrament do we teach, except that sin is drowned and error 
 destroyed; while piety and innocence remain safe." — Ambrose, 
 iii, 393. 
 
 ^' In mari autem Eubro figuram istius baptismatis extitisse ait 
 Apostolus, dicens: 'Quia patres nostri omnes baptizati sunt in 
 nube et in mari.' (I Cor. 10:1, 2.) Et subdidit: 'Hasc autem 
 omnia in figura facta sunt illis (v. 6); illis in figura, sed nobis in 
 veritate.' " 
 
 " But the Apostle declares that a figure of this baptism shows 
 itself in the Eed Sea, saying: 'That all our fathers were bap- 
 tized by the cloud and by the sea.' (I Cor. 10 : 1, 2.) And 
 added : 'But all these things were done to them in figure (v. 6); 
 to them in figure, but to us in reality.' " — Ambrose, iii, 423. 
 
 " Tenebat virgam Moyses, et ducebat populum Hebrasorum 
 in nocte, in Columbia lucis, in die, in columna nubis. Columna 
 
RED SEA BAPTISM. 291 
 
 lueis quii est, nisi Christus Dominus At vero colurnna 
 
 nubis ei,t Spiritus sanctus. In mari erat populus, et praeibat 
 colurnna lucis; deinde sequebatui' colurnna nubis, quasi umbra- 
 tio Spiritus Sancti. Vides quod per Spiritum Sanctum et per 
 aquam typum baptismatis demon straverit." 
 
 "Moses held the rod, and led the Hebrew people by night, 
 with the pillar of light; by day, with the pillar of cloud. Tiie 
 pillar of light, what is it, but Christ the Lord. . . . But, indeed, 
 the pillar of cloud is the Holy Spirit. The people were in the 
 sea, and the pillar of light went before; then followed the pillar 
 of cloud, the shadowing, as it were, of the Holy Spirit. Thou 
 seest that by the Holy Spirit and by the water, a type of bap- 
 tism may have been exhibited." — iii, 424. 
 
 " Qui non fuisti memor indignationis tuse : sed sicut in mari 
 mersisti onines iniquitates nostras, sicut jEgyptium plumbum. 
 .... Quod potest et ad baptismum referri, quo ^Egyptius mer- 
 gitur, Hebrseus resurgit." . . . 
 
 " Who hast not been mindful of thy displeasure; but, as in the 
 sea, thou hast drowned all our iniquities, like Egyptian lead. 
 .... Which may also be referred to baptism, whereby the 
 Egyptian is drowned and the Hebrew rises again." — iii, 1240. 
 
 " Filii igitur Israel, ut Pharaonem et ^Egyptios evaderent, per 
 medium sicci maris transierunt, et aquse eis erant quasi pro muro 
 a dextris et a sinistris. Similiter et populus gentium, ut diaboium 
 omnesque ejus satellites evaderent, per aquam baptismatis tran- 
 sierunt. Et qui antea erant filii diaboli, ex aqua et Spiritu 
 Sancto, qui per columnam ignis designabatur, renati effecti sunt 
 filii Dei. Aqua ergo maris filios Israel salvavit. Pharaonem 
 vero cum omnibus satellitibus suis necavit; quia aqua baptis- 
 matis imaginem Dei salvat, peccata quibus servierat, extinguit; 
 diabolus autem unicuique, extinguitur, qui eum fideliter cum 
 omnibus pompis ejus abrenuntiat. 
 
 " Aqu£e vero quae pro muro eis erant, a dextris et a sinistris 
 fidem designabant nostram, quam in baptismati percipimus, quae 
 murus est noster ex utraque parte defendens nos et ab invisibili- 
 bus hostibus et a visibilibus." 
 
 "The children of Israel, therefore, that they might escape 
 Pharaoh and the Eyptians, passed through the midst of the dry 
 
292 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 sea, and ' the waters were to them as a wall on tJe right hand 
 and on the left.' In like manner the people of the Gentiles, 
 that they might escape the devil and his satellites, have passed 
 through the "water of baptism. And they who, formerly, were 
 children of the devil, born again by water and the Holy Spirit, 
 (who was signified by the pillar of fire,) are made the sons of 
 God. The water, therefore, of the sea saved the children of 
 Israel. But it slew Pharaoh with all his servants. Because the 
 water of baptism, saves the likeness of God and destroys the sins 
 which it served ; but the devil is destroyed to every one who 
 faithfully renounces him with all his pomps. 
 
 " But the waters which were to them as a wall on the right 
 hand and on the left, designate our faith which we receive in 
 baptism; which is our wall, on either side, defending us from 
 enemies invisible and visible." — iv, 827. 
 
 ^H 8k 6dka(j(7rj y.ai ij vecpO.rj npbq ;j.h to izapw slq iziarvj hr,y£ d'.a r^? 
 xaTank^^twq' izpbz 8e zo /j.iX/.ov u>^ tutto? ttjv iffo/iivi^v ydptv -Kpouizeffij- 
 p.atv£. 
 
 " But the sea and the cloud, at that time, induced faith through 
 amazement ; but, as a type, it signified, for the future, the grace 
 that should be after." — Basil Magnus, iv, 124. 
 
 To did T^g OaXdffOT}'^ xai rijc vecpihjq. 
 
 "That baptism which is by the cloud and sea." — John of Da- 
 mascus, i, 261. Paris, 1712. 
 
 Td 8k uSara, ix^aiTeoffavra ru) Xa<i) rijv dff^dXeiav, ISt^Xou rd ^ditriaixa' 
 xai Tzaaa 8k ij OTZoSeaiq rrjq d-Ko AtyoTtTiou auTuJv d8ou, ruTtoq rjv rrjg iv rut 
 ^.aTtrcff/j-arc aujTfjptar:. . . . MiDvarj'Z 8k, zutzov kfsptv zou Xpiczou. 
 
 " The waters, securing safety for the people, signify baptism. 
 .... And the whole material of their journey from Egypt was 
 a type of the salvation by baptism. . . . But JVIoses himself was 
 a type of Chriat." ^-Didymus Alex., 696. 
 
 A BAPTISM WITHOUT USE OF THE WORD. 
 
 The historical narrative furnished iis in Exodus of the 
 passage of the children of Israel through the divided sea, 
 and of the drowning of Pharaoh and the Egyptians attempt- 
 lag to follow after them, does not furnish us with any word 
 
RED SEA BAPTISM. 293 
 
 equivalent to ^anTil^a) ; nor does the Septuagint use it in its 
 version. 
 
 But that a baptism did take place on this occasion, is ac- 
 cepted by all bj reason of the statement of the Apostle Paul 
 in I Cor. 10 : 2. 
 
 On the form and nature of this baptism there is a wide 
 diversity of opinion. 
 
 It will be both interesting and instructive, to consider the 
 different notions of baptism, held by various parties, as they 
 are brought into contact in the attempt to resolve this his- 
 torical transaction into a baptism. 
 
 Three styles of baptism are claimants for our favor : 1. That 
 of the Theorists ; 2. That of the Patrists ; 3. That of the 
 Apostle. 
 
 The nature of these several claims, with their sustaining 
 evidences, will be considered in their order. 
 
 RED SEA BAPTISM OF THE THEORISTS. 
 
 " The passage of the children of Israel through the Red 
 Sea is figuratively called a baptism from its external resem- 
 blance to the ordinance, and from being appointed to serve 
 a like purpose as well as to figure the. same thing. Here 
 (I Cor. 10 : 2) they are said to have been baptized. There 
 can be no doubt, therefore, that there is in their passage 
 through the sea, something that represents both the external 
 form and the purpose of Christian baptism. It was a real 
 immersion — the sea stood on each side, and the cloud covered 
 them. But it was not a literal immersion in water, in the 
 same way as Christian baptism. It is, therefore, figuratively 
 called by the name of the Christian ordinance, because of 
 external similarity, and because of serving the like purpose 
 as well as figuring the same event. 
 
 " The going down of the Israelites into the sea, their being 
 covered by the cloud, and their issuing out on the other side, 
 resembled the baptism of believers, served a like purpose as 
 attesting their faith in Moses as a temporal Saviour, and 
 figured the burial and resurrection of Christ and Christians 
 as well as Christian baptism. . . . Surely there is no strain- 
 
294 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 ing to see in this fact something that may darkly shadow a 
 burial. . . . The baptism of Pentecost and of the Israelites 
 in the Eed Sea were dry baptisms." 
 
 Dr. Carson either writes very enigmatically or very self- 
 contradictorily. He tells us that this passage of the Israel- 
 ites was " a real immersion," and, therefore, according to 
 his remarkable use of words, a real diiojnng ; and therefore, 
 still farther, according to bis postulation, a baptism. But 
 having created this real (?) baptism at the demands of theory, 
 he very promptly, by reason of necessity in another direc- 
 tion, disrobes it of the real habiliment and enrobes it in the 
 dress of figure. " It is figuratively called a baptism." One 
 baptism may be typical of another baptism. But a real bap- 
 tism cannot get its name from anything but its own reality. 
 If the passage of the Israelites was a real baptism it takes 
 its name from its own inherent character, and not as "a 
 figure of the Christian ordinance." 
 
 Dr. C. also writes with a free and easy assumption, and 
 undertakes to tell us what is the divine appointment without 
 showing any commission on which is written — "Thus saith 
 the Lord." " It is called a baptism from its external resem- 
 blance to the ordinance, and from being appointed to serve 
 a like purpose as well as to figure the same thing." The 
 writer is at liberty to imagine an "external resemblance to 
 the ordinance" and to make out such resemblance as well 
 as he can ; but he is not at liberty to say, that God has " ap- 
 pointed " this Israelitish passage " to serve a like purpose 
 and to figure the same thing" as Christian baptism, without 
 putting his finger on the record made by higher authority 
 than his own. 
 
 But what is the resemblance which he traces ? This, — 
 "the going down of the Israelites into the sea, their being 
 covered by the cloud, and their issuing out on the other 
 side, resembled the baptism of believers." That is to say, 
 " the going down " and "the issuing out" "resemble" 
 the act of dipping into water — covered and bare — our old 
 friends of the sea-coast beyond the pillars of Hercules. The 
 faculty for tracing a resemblance between such things re- 
 
RED SEA BAPTISM. 295 
 
 minds us of tlae sea story of one of our distinguished country- 
 men in which he represents the commander, after looking 
 through his glass at a vessel in the far-ofi' distance, as saying 
 to an African sailor by his side, that "he thought it was a 
 church," and " old Scip" promptly replied, that he thought 
 so too. 
 
 If Dr. Carson would try his fellow-theorists who see with 
 him a marked resemblance to a " dipping," by adding — 
 "ISTow, I think it is a church," he probably would hear them 
 respond with all alacrity — "And we think so too !" 
 
 But what "purpose " is this passage " appointed to serve?" 
 As " attesting their faith in Moses as a temporal Saviour." 
 l^ow, so far from this passage being appointed to give testi- 
 mony to the faith which they had in Moses, it was appointed 
 for the very opposite reason ; namely, because they had not 
 faith in Moses, and to the end that such faith might be be- 
 gotten and established. Let us take the guidance not of 
 theories but of the word of God. Standing on the hither 
 side of the sea, Israel, sore afraid and full of unbelief, said 
 unto Moses, "Because there were no graves in Egypt, hast 
 thou taken us away to die in the wilderness? wherefore 
 hast thou dealt thus with us, to carry us forth out of Egypt ? 
 Is not this the word that we did tell thee in Egypt, saying. 
 Let us alone, that we may serve the Egyptians ? Eor it had 
 been better for us to serve the Egyptians than that we should 
 die in the wilderness." (Exod. 14 : 11, 12.) As a result of 
 this miraculous passage and deliverance we are told, as they 
 stand securely on the farther side, their enemies all slain, — 
 " And Israel saw that great work which the Lord did upon 
 the Egyptians : and the people feared the Lord, and believed 
 the Lord, and Ms servant Moses." (v. 81.) Thus the statement 
 of the end for which this baptism was appointed, — namely, 
 to show the faith which they already had in Moses, is in the 
 most absolute contradiction to Scripture statement. "We 
 are told, most expressly, that before the passage they had 
 no faith in Moses ; and we are told, as expressly, that after 
 the passage they had faith in him; and the cause by which 
 unbelief was removed and belief was established, was their 
 
296 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 *' seeing the Egyptians dead upon the sea-shore," and " the 
 great work which the Lord had done." 
 
 Now, unless the theory will openly set aside the word of 
 God, this " appointment to show, by their baptism, their 
 faith in Moses as a temporal saviour" is disposed of. 
 
 But we are farther told, that this baptism is appointed " to 
 figure the burial and resurrection of Christ and Christians." 
 That is to say; the march of two million men, women and 
 children, with flocks and herds innumerable, through the di- 
 vided sea, "figures the burial of Christ and Christians," while 
 the lauding on the farther side amid bleating sheep and low- 
 ing oxen "figures the resurrection." To oppose all this I 
 confess myself unable to put my finger upon any ipsissima 
 verba of Scripture. Revelation is designed to correct error 
 and to establish truth. But it does not occupy itself with 
 the empty fantasies or grotesque eccentricities of the human 
 intellect. All I can say is, that this resurrection of Israel 
 from the lied Sea burial, richly laden with all the spoils of 
 Egypt, does not bear a very striking "resemblance" to the 
 Scripture, which says, "We brought nothing into this world, 
 and it is certain that we can carry nothing out." 
 ! So much for the name, and the resemblance, and the pur- 
 pose, and the figure of this Red Sea baptism according to 
 the theory. 
 
 Let us, now, look at it in some other points of view. 
 
 1. How is this baptistery constructed? What is the depth 
 of that burial-place " down" into which these walk? Facts 
 say, that the bottom of the sea was but little lower than the 
 shore ; not more than would allow a company on horseback 
 to ride (as has been done) a considerable distance into the 
 water. The "going down" into this abyss, therefore, fur- 
 nished but a shallow grave. But the lofty water-walls may 
 make up for the shallowness of the sea, and by inclosing 
 and outtopping constitute an immersion for these millions 
 with their flocks and herds. How lofty these water-walls 
 were the Scripture does not say. There is no good reason 
 to believe that they were any higher than the natural depth 
 of the sea. There is good reason for believing that they 
 
RED SEA BAPTISM. 297 
 
 were not so high as the natural depth of the sea. The 
 waters were divided by the blowing of the wind. If a 
 miracle did not intervene to prevent it, the excess of waters 
 would flow away, as they were displaced by the wind, and 
 not become piled up in a heap. We are told that a mir- 
 acle did arrest the down-flowing waters of the Jordan. 
 We are not told of any such miracle at the Red Sea. We 
 have no right to make miracles for ourselves. The most, 
 then, that we are justified in affirming as to the height of 
 these water-walls is the natural depth of the sea. But at 
 what distance do these walls stand from each other ? We 
 are not told that any miracle was wrought to help these 
 Israelites as to their speed. We must, therefore, allow 
 enough of space between these walls for the ordinary' march 
 of two million men, women, and children, incumbered with 
 flocks and herds, and tents and household goods. Kow, 
 within a very limited space it would be impossible, a few 
 abreast, to cross this sea within a night. These millions, 
 with flocks and herds, &c., &c., could not be put into march- 
 ing condition with a less front than one mile, and make the 
 passage. They would, then, extend back for five miles. It 
 is more probable that these water-walls were five miles dis- 
 tant from each other than that they were only half a mile 
 distant. But whether one mile or five apart, what show, 
 for the immersion of millions, would water-walls twenty 
 feet, more or less, high make ? 
 
 But if the sea be shallow and the walls be low and afar, 
 may not the baptistery be efi'ectively completed by its cloud- 
 roof? Is there not, at least, herein that vital element to an 
 immersion — a covering? Dr. Carson evidently thinks so, 
 and insists upon it with that positiveness and tenacity which 
 might be expected from one who did not regard the Angel 
 Gabriel as his peer on this matter of dipping. What evi- 
 dence does he bring to show that a cloud-roof rested on these 
 water-walls during the passage of Israel makii^g an immer- 
 sion baptistery? Why he points to two prepositions {^~^ 
 and ^i') used by Paul, without showing that thej' meet to- 
 gether on this occasion, and without any such statement 
 
298 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 by the Apostle. And against what proof to the contrary is 
 this adduced? Why against the statement by Moses, as 
 explicit as language is capable of, that there was no cloud 
 covering Israel during their passage. This is his statement : 
 "And the angel of God, which went before the camp of 
 Israel, removed and went behind them; and the pillar of the 
 cloud went from before their face and stood behind them." 
 (Ex. 14 : 19.) This was before the passage began. " And it 
 (the pillar of cloud) came between the camp of the Egyptians 
 and the camp of Israel; and it was a cloud and darkness to 
 them; but it gave light by night to these: so that the one 
 came not near the other all the night." We have here, 1. A 
 definite position to the cloud. J^ot resting on the water- 
 walls of the theoretic baptistery, but between the camps of 
 Egypt and Israel. 2. The time of its continuance in that 
 position. It was through the entire night, — "so that the 
 one came not near the other all the night." 3. The func- 
 tions of the cloud through that night. To invest with pre- 
 ternatural darkness the camp of Egypt, and to illumine the 
 passage of Israel. 
 
 The cloud, then, was engaged in other duties, that night, 
 than in a participation in the dipping — immersion — burial 
 — resurrection — march — baptism — of Israel. But will these 
 statements of Moses have any influence with the theorists, to 
 induce them to take down their Red Sea baptistery? Surely 
 not. Have they not studied the prepositions ? Do they not 
 know the meaning of ^anri^w ? Is it not the easiest word in 
 the Greek lano-ua^e to translate ? Does it not alwavs mean 
 dip, and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature? 
 Why should they, who know so much, yield to Moses, who 
 was only an eye-witness and prime actor in the scene, and 
 inspired of God to write the record? "Either the persons 
 referred to were immersed, on the occasions mentioned, or 
 the inspired writer testifies a falsehood." (Carson, p. 397.) And 
 who dare mutter or peep after the inspired writer has been 
 
 notified to utter the shibboleth, or to be branded as a . 
 
 I will take the warning, at least so far as to say nothing 
 more on this point. 
 
RED SEA BAPTISM. 299 
 
 2. Let us lay objection aside, and suppose tlie baptistery 
 to be constructed after the Carson model. What is it worth, 
 as to its baptizing power? Where is the element into which 
 the baptism takes place ? Confessedly there is none. There 
 is but empty space between the walls and roof. It is a mat- 
 ter for admiration that this empty space was not filled with 
 that " east wind," seeing that the wind, or the sound like 
 wind, was employed for dipping the Apostles at Pentecost. 
 But somehow or other this has been overlooked; and we 
 have an empty baptistery in which some millions are to be 
 dipped. Another thing is lacking. As there is no water, 
 save in the walls, there can be no "figured" purification. 
 And yet even the theory admits, that this is one of the vital 
 features of Christian baptism, which we are told is here 
 "figured." In fact this baptistery assumes the exclusive 
 character of a huge sepulchre, and that night-march of men, 
 women, and children, sheep and oxen, is a self-baptizing 
 funeral procession, working out "the figure" of burial and 
 resurrection. 
 
 Well, such is the baptism. ISTow, may we ask of the 
 theory, which is so rich in Classic lore, and so tenacious of 
 the heathen rights of /SaTrrt'Cw, on what cases of parallel clas- 
 sical usage they ground this Red Sea baptism? My limited 
 knowledge supplies no case of heathen baptism "into empty 
 space." It seems to me that a good deal of peculiar rhetoric 
 will be required to make out the case, and, after all, the 
 abandonment of the Classic side of /JaTrrc'Cw, and something, 
 perhaps, be said, in an undertone, about "a religious use." 
 I am afraid that the weight put on this reed will be found 
 quite too heavy, and that, in breaking, it will pierce the 
 hand that leans upon it. 
 
 It is something, however, to repay our study of this re- 
 markable structure, to learn, at least, that its baptism into 
 nothing, figuring a burial and resurrection, makes no spe- 
 cial claim to the Classics for support. 
 
 3. Seeing, now, that this structure is repudiated by inspi- 
 ration, so far as to unroof it; and is repudiated by heathen- 
 ism through her Classics, so far as the "dry" baptism is 
 
300 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 concerned ; let us see what aid and comfort the theory itself 
 is ready to extend to its offspring. 
 
 (1.) The theory demands a baptizer. The candidates for 
 baptism are a host, before which the numbers of Pentecost 
 dwindle into insignificance. Must this be a self-baptism — 
 prototype, on a magnificent scale, of the self-baptism of 
 Roger Williams? Then, along with purification, we elim- 
 inate from the "resemblances" the not unimportant feature 
 of a baptizer. 
 
 (2.) The theory requires, that in self-baptism ^d-Kzoj shall 
 officiate. "The person dips himself; therefore it is iSdnrw^ to 
 dip, and not ^aizriZu}, to cause to dip." (Carson, p. 30.) But 
 here we have some millions "dipping" themselves, and it 
 is /SaxTi'Cw, and not /SaTrrtu, that does the work. What says 
 the theory ? 
 
 (3.) The theory requires a modal act — dip, and nothing 
 but dip. But here we have the modal act tramp, tramp, and 
 nothing but tramp. What says the theory? All right? 
 
 (4.) The theory demands a momentary covering for its 
 dipped object. Here was one lasting from the evening till 
 the morning-watch. Will that answer for a dipping? 
 
 (5.) The theory requires faith in the candidate for bap- 
 tism. To make these candidates suitable in their resem- 
 blance, it fills them with faith in Moses, where the Scrip- 
 tures show them rampant with unbelief. 
 
 (6.) The theory repudiates infant baptism. And yet in 
 this very remarkable baptism, it exhibits the most magnifi- 
 cent spectacle of infant baptism that the rolling ages have 
 ever witnessed. 
 
 Our ear has grown familiar with the information (fur- 
 nished by the theory, not the Scriptures), that there were 
 no infant children in the family of the Jailor, or of Lydia, 
 or of Stephanas, or of any other baptized family of the New 
 Testament; but were there no infant children among all the 
 families of Israel? Were these infant children taken from 
 their parents' arms, and carried over outside the water-walls, 
 and unshadowed by the cloud-roof? or, was their baptism 
 put down with that of the sheep and the oxen, as of nothing 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE RED SEA BAPTISM. 301 
 
 worth, lest it should be supposed to be one of the "resem- 
 blances to the Christian ordinance?" 
 
 Unless the theory is prepared to take a baptism without a 
 baptizer; unless it is willing to confess error in the distinc- 
 tion made between ^dnroj and ^anril^w- unless it is prepared 
 to set aside the modal act of dipping; unless it is prepared 
 to part with that momentary covering, with which dip only 
 can furnish it; unless it is ready to set aside its watchword, 
 "faith first, baptism afterward ;" and, finally, unless it is pre- 
 pared to recognize the baptism of little children; it must 
 reconstruct its Red Sea baptistery, and repudiate its bap- 
 tism by nobody into nothing. 
 
 There is, no doubt, surprising originality in the concep- 
 tion of this baptism; otherwise some mind, in the course of 
 the three thousand years which elapsed before this theory 
 was born, would have caught some glimpse of it. But the 
 most brilliant originality can hardly survive repudiation by 
 inspired writers, repudiation by classic writers, and repudia- 
 tion, or suicidal acceptance, by — itself. 
 
 Such seems to be the present aspect of this " dry baptism " 
 in the sea. 
 
 But Dr. Carson asks, more than once, " If this is not the 
 baptism, then, what is?" Certainly not an unreasonable 
 question. We will approach its solution by first stating what 
 was the Patristic notion of this baptism. It will be found 
 " another kind " of baptism from that just expounded. 
 
 PATEISTIC INTEEPEETATION OF THE BED SEA BAPTISM. 
 
 AMBROSE. 
 
 First Extract, — In the first extract from Ambrose, we are 
 told that the deliverance of Israel from the land of Egypt, 
 by means of the passage provided for them through the Red 
 Sea, was a figure of baptism. The baptism was the deliver- 
 ance; the passage of the sea was the means whereby it was 
 accomplished. 
 
302 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Second Extract. — In the second extract there is a partial 
 development of the figure as he understands it. It is this: 
 "The Egyptian perishes and the Hehrew escapes." The 
 application of these historical facts to Christian baptism, he 
 makes thus : *' We teach in this sacrament that sin is drowned 
 and error is destroyed: but piety and innocence remain." 
 Ambrose considered the drowning of the Egyptians to be as 
 vital a constituent in the Red Sea baptism as the escape of 
 the Hebrews. Both had an equally vital bearing on Chris- 
 tian baptism as he understood it. IsTot so the theorists. 
 
 Third Extract. — It is only necessary, in this extract, to call 
 attention to the use of in as translating iv, and our transla- 
 tion of both in an instrumental and not local sense. Some 
 justifying reasons for this have already been assigned; more 
 will be given hereafter. 
 
 Fourth Extract. — Here in makes imperative demand, by 
 the exigency of the passage, for instrumental power. "In 
 nocte," and "in die," may be translated "m the night" — 
 "m the day;" yet not so well as through the night, during the 
 night, nightly, by night, &c. But "in columna lucis" — "in 
 columna uubis" cannot be translated, "m a pillar of light" — 
 "m a pillar of cloud." IS'either Moses nor the people were 
 in the pillar of fire, or cloud, as a fact. But Moses did, in 
 fact, lead the people hy the fiery and cloudy pillar under 
 divine direction. We must, then, allow Ambrose to state 
 this fact though he use the preposition " in " to do it. He 
 farther explains the figure in this baptism by interpreting 
 "the pillar of light" as Christ the Lord; "the pillar of 
 cloud" as the Holy Spirit; and the water as the element 
 used in Christian baptism. He does not construct a bap- 
 tistery with water- walls and cloud-roof. 
 
 Fifth Extract. — Sins pardoned are like Egyptian lead, 
 drowned in the sea. The Egyptian is drov/ned; the Hebrew 
 rises, like the axe out of Jordan. 
 
 • Sixth Extract. — The special value of this extract is the 
 clear exhibition which it makes of the passage through the 
 sea as an agency by which something is to be eft'ected, and 
 not as an end in which something terminates. This is the 
 
BAPTISM INTO MOSES. 303 
 
 key which unlocks the Patristic idea of baptism. Without 
 it neither their conception nor their practice can be worthily 
 understood. 
 
 Ambrose tells us, " The children of Israel, that they might 
 escape Pharaoh and the Egyptians, passed through the midst 
 of the dry sea." Language could not be more explicit to 
 teach that this dry passage was an agency employed for an 
 end, which end was " escape from Pharaoh and the Egyp- 
 tians." The nail thus driven home is clinched by the state- 
 ment, that those persons desirous of escaping " the devil and 
 his satellites " employ Christian baptism as a means to this 
 end. And herein is the resemblance between the Red Sea 
 baptism and its Patristically understood antitype, Christian 
 baptism. The water of the sea saved the Hebrews by giving 
 them a dry passage; it slew Pharaoh and his servants by 
 flowing over them. Here is agency of the most active and 
 efficient character. So, " the water of baptism saves the 
 image of God and destroys the sins which it served." Again, 
 agency and nothing but agency. 
 
 Ambrose adds another explanation of the figure. "The 
 water-walls designate our faith, which we receive in bap- 
 tism." This Patrist differs from the theorists in their idea 
 that the Israelites had faith in Moses before their baptism. 
 He makes faith a consequence of baptism. He is right, and. 
 they are wrong, so far as this Israelitish baptism is con- 
 cerned. 
 
 The understanding of Ambrose as to the Red Sea baptism 
 is too clear to be mistaken. He regards the passage through 
 "the dry sea" as the means by which Israel was delivered; 
 which deliverance was consummated by the reflow of the 
 waters and consequent destruction of the Egyptians. 
 
 Ambrose does not fall into the sad blunder, of mistaking an 
 agency used to effect a baptism for the element within which 
 the baptism takes place ; nor yet, the equal blunder, of at- 
 tempting to trace a resemblance between one agency and 
 another agency; or between the agency and the element of 
 a baptism. These patent errors belong to the theory. 
 
 Ambrose knew perfectly well, that " whatever is capable 
 
304 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 of exercising a controlling influence over its object, thor- 
 oughly changing its condition," is capable of baptizing that 
 object. When, therefore, he is told, that the Israelites are 
 brought out of a condition of deadly peril, into a condition 
 of absolute safety, by means of a miraculous passage through 
 the sea, he does not take a line to measure the depth of the 
 bed of the sea, or the height of the water-walls, or the extent 
 of the cloud-roof, to find out a sepulchre for the immersion. 
 Men who do this have lost their heads. They call midnight 
 noon ; and in proof of it kindle their rushlight and cry — 
 "See, the sun!" 
 
 It is the same error which continually crops out in the 
 interpretation of Classic baptisms to the violation of all 
 rhetoric and common sense. It is the same error as that of 
 the lake-frog dipping of Gale, and of the boxer dipped into 
 his bloody nose by Carson. It is the dislocation of the 
 agency in baptism, and making it fulfil the office of a re- 
 ceiving element. 
 
 Whatever misconception there may be in Ambrose about 
 the interpretation, or application, of this great baptism, he 
 makes no mistake as to the true character and proper ele- 
 ments of a baptism. He is in perfect accord with the 
 Classics. 
 
 BASIL THE GREAT. 
 
 The quotation from Basil exhibits the sea and the cloud, 
 as occupying the position of agency in this baptism. There 
 is no debate here about prepositions, fur there are none. 
 The nominative case declares their character as agents. 
 Faith, also, is said to be effected by them, and that through 
 the miraculous character of their agency. 
 
 JOHN OF DAMASCUS. 
 
 This quotation is taken from President Beecher, who, also, 
 quotes from Hilary on I Cor. 10 : 2, — " Per mare et per nu- 
 bem purificati." In both cases, (cloud and sea,) the prepo- 
 sition used by the apostle is changed for another, more 
 distinctively expressive of instrumentality ; while the verb 
 
BAPTISM INTO Mt>SES. 305 
 
 is changed for a word expressing, by original use, the mean- 
 ing which the Greek word had secured, only, through appro- 
 priation to religious rites. 
 
 DIDYMUS ALBXANDRINUS. 
 
 In common with all others, Didymus makes "the waters" 
 the instrumental means of salvation, and, therefore, signifi- 
 cant of Christian baptism, which he believed to be the in- 
 strument in saving the soul. That salvation by the passage 
 of the sea, as an instrument, without regard to mode, is the 
 truth which allies it to Christian baptism, is conclusively 
 shown by the additional statement, that not only this par- 
 ticular transaction, but "all, else, pertaining to their journey 
 from Egypt is a type of salvation by baptism." 
 
 There is not a Patristic writer that hints at a dipping, or 
 covering, or immersion, or burial, or resurrection, in this 
 Red Sea baptism. With one voice they term it a baptism 
 of salvation, in which the cloud and sea were the agencies; 
 typifying the Holy Spirit and water, the agencies in salva- 
 tion, by Christian baptism. 
 
 The conceptions of this baptism, as entertained by the 
 theorists and the Patrists, differ from each other toto ccelo. 
 
 INSPIKED INTERPEETATION OF THE EED SEA BAPTISM. 
 
 "Moreover, brethren, I would not that ye should be ignorant, 
 how that all our fathers were under the cloud, and all passed 
 through the sea; 
 
 "And were all baptized into Moses by the cloud and by the 
 sea." 
 
 Kai TzdvTsq df; t6v Mwuarjv i^oTzriaavTo iv r^ ve^iX-q xat iv ttj iaXdafftj. 
 
 1 Cor. 10 : 2. 
 Baptism into Moses. 
 
 Before entering upon the interpretation of the special 
 passage with which we are concerned, it will be well to 
 glance at the connection in which it stands. 
 
 The apostle says: 1. All our fathers were under the cloud. 
 
 20 
 
306 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 2. All passed through the sea. 3. All were baptized into 
 Moses. 4. All ate the spiritual meat. 5. All drank the 
 spiritual drink. 
 
 Here are five distinct facts stated in which all the Jewish 
 fathers participated. They are all facts of successive chro- 
 nological development, unless the apostle, after having car- 
 ried them through the sea in the most absolute manner, 
 (using a double d^d, with noun and verb,) brings them back 
 again into the sea for the purpose of baptizing them. 
 
 The historical narrative says : 1. They were under the cloud 
 which passed over them before they commenced their march. 
 
 2. They passed from under the cloud to pass through the 
 sea; the cloud remaining behind. 
 
 3. They are now over the sea, and being over are " bap- 
 tized into Moses;" or the narrator has made a chronological 
 slip, and has got to go back, and tell us what happened in 
 the sea, before they "passed through." 
 
 If the baptism was before the "passing through," why not 
 say so? If the baptism and the passing through were one and 
 the same thing, why make distinct statements of them, in 
 precisely the same form as of events in the same list, which 
 are distinct in character and successive in development? 
 
 4. The eating spiritual meat was subsequent to the pass- 
 ing through the sea, and, 
 
 5. The drinking of the spiritual rock was after the eating 
 of the spiritual meat. 
 
 It will, I think, be admitted by every one, that unless 
 there should be a compelling necessity to place the baptism 
 before the passing through the sea, it must stand, chrono- 
 logically, as the apostle has placed it, in fact, subsequent to 
 and, also, a result of the passage through the sea. 
 
 We will now proceed to a particular consideration of this 
 deeply interesting statement of the Apostle. 
 
 Translation. 
 
 1. The translation — "and were all baptized into Moses by 
 the cloud and by the sea" — ^presents all the elements which 
 enter into a baptism of tha"^ class to which the theory says 
 
BAPTISM INTO MOSES. 307 
 
 this baptism balongs (physical), and which must appear in 
 any formally-stated figurative baptism, based on this class 
 of baptisms. We have: (1.) The object — " all Israel." (2.) 
 The agency — " cloud and sea." (3.) The element (by ver- 
 bal suggestion) — "into Moses." 
 
 On the other hand, the translation of the theory gives us 
 neither the agency, nor the element; but merely an object 
 and a locality. To secure an agency they have to resort to 
 what, alone, is within their reach — the act of marching. To 
 obtain an element, they construct a building — baptistery or 
 sepulchre — in the sea, and fill it with the baptizing element, 
 to wit, — nothing at all. Having made this provision to sup- 
 plement the deficiencies of the inspired narrative, the trans- 
 lation reads: "And were all baptized unto Moses, in the 
 cloud and in the sea, into nothing at all, by marching." 
 
 This is no caricature. It is no exposition of mine. It is 
 the elaborate exposition of the sternest and ablest friend of 
 the theory. If any one should complain — with Booth — 
 " this makes our theory ridiculous;" it is no fault of mine. 
 
 The translation which we ofter is not condemnable on the 
 score of lacking any of the elementary features of a baptism. 
 
 2. The translation of ^v. — That with, or by, may be a true 
 translation of iv, is admitted by Dr. Carson: "It may be sur- 
 prising that, after all that has been said on the subject, I 
 should still lay any stress on the preposition kv, in. I may 
 be asked. Do you deny that it may be translated with? I 
 do not deny this, yet I am still disposed to lay stress upon 
 it." (p. 121.) " The preposition is often to be translated with, 
 but in the sense by, grammarians themselves acknowledge it 
 to be rare." (p. 330.) Patristic writers — Greek and Latin — 
 use ^v, and in, with an instrumental sense, much more fre- 
 quently than do Classic writers. The same usage is exhib- 
 ited in the Septuagint. In E'ehemiah 9 : 12: "Thou leddest 
 them in the day by a cloudy pillar; and in the night by a 
 pillar of fire." And Ps. 78 : 14: "In the daytime, also, he 
 led them loith a cloud, and all the night with a light of fire." 
 And in Ps. 77 : 20: "Thou leddest thy people like a flock, 
 by the hanr? of Moses and Aaron." In all these passages the 
 
308 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 agency of the cloud and fire, of Moses and Aa.ion, u indi- 
 cated by iv. 
 
 3. Unless this translation be correct, and ^v points out the 
 agency, there is no agency. But there can be no baptism 
 without a baptizing agency, therefore we are shut up to this 
 translation. I may add, that Pliny uses the phrase " in nube," 
 when wiihinnesg, as to the cloud, is impossible : '■'■neque in nube 
 neque inflatu cadunt rores." Dew never falls within a cloud. 
 The influence of cloud and wind prevents the formation of 
 dew. " Dews do not fall during a cloudy or windy night." 
 
 4. The translation accords with the historical facts. The 
 cloud and the sea were agencies, truly magnificent agencies, 
 employed in this transaction. The divided sea, furnishing 
 its dry pathway, and the cloud, casting preternatural dark- 
 ness over the camp of Pharaoh, while illuminating the night- 
 march of Israel, were the miraculous agencies brought into 
 operation. The use of miracle, to affect and to iufiuence 
 men, is in harmony with the steadily maintained purpose 
 of God. To this end miracles were used in Egypt, in the 
 wilderness, throughout the Jewish economy, during the life 
 of the Redeemer, and in the establishment of Christianity. 
 This agency, then, was no strange thing. The influence of 
 these miracles on Israel could not, in the nature of things, 
 have its development until their full consummation. And 
 this consummation neither did, nor could, take place until 
 Israel was placed, in safety, on the farther side of the sea, 
 and their enemies had been swallowed up in the miracu- 
 lously returning waters. Then, and not till then, does the 
 narrative say that this influence had its development, effect- 
 ing an entire change in the condition of the Israelitish mind 
 toward Moses. That translation which usage allows, history 
 demands. " Cloud and sea" were not elements to be dipped 
 into. They were agencies in which was " the hiding of God's 
 power." 
 
 5. Historical facts do not allow the adverse translation — 
 "m the cloud, m the sea." There is no historical evidence 
 to show that the millions of Israel were now, or were at any 
 other time, " in the cloud." There is historical evidence to 
 
BAPTISM INTO MOSES. 309 
 
 the contrary. There is no historical evidence to show that 
 Paul uses iv rrj iaXdaarj^ out of its usual sense including water, 
 but excludes water, and limits his meaning to the bed of the 
 sea. There is historical evidence to show that such cannot 
 be his meaning. 
 
 Dr. Carson says: "He will make the word (/Sa^rrt'Cw) find 
 him water in the desert." Here he has the word, and yet 
 he cannot find, with it, a drop of water "in the sea." 
 
 These are some of the considerations which vindicate the 
 translation, so far as this preposition {iv) is concerned. 
 
 3. The translation of d<:. — (1.) The translation "into," is re- 
 quired in order to indicate the element (verbally suggested) 
 of the baptism. There are classes of baptism in which the 
 mersing element is wholl}^ lost. It has no more place in 
 imagination than it has in fact. But in all such cases an 
 element may be verbally introduced. In some cases this is 
 very important in order to give precision to a statement 
 which, otherwise, would be vague and uncertain. In other 
 cases it is imperative, as without it we could never be cer- 
 tain of the nature of the baptism designed. If I am told 
 that a man is " baptized by wine," I may conclude with much 
 confidence, that the meaning is, he loas made drunk; but of 
 this I cannot be confident; for, while this is the natural and 
 ordinary influence of wine, it also induces a condition of 
 stupor, shame, poverty, &c. If the statement is, " baptized 
 by wine into drunkenness," doubt is at an end. The verbal 
 suggestion of the element, has settled the matter. If I do 
 not know the nature of wine, then to be told that a man is 
 "baptized by wine" conveys to me no definite information 
 whatever. isTow, the influence of a miracle is not limited, 
 by its nature, to one result; neither are miracles always 
 wrought for the accomplishment of one uniform result. 
 "Baptism by miracle," therefore, is not specific in its in- 
 formation. What baptism would be eflfected by the mir- 
 acles at the Red Sea, could never be known, definitely, ex- 
 cept by specific statement. The Egyptians were baptized 
 into terror, by the divine intervention troubling their chariots, 
 and witnessnig the inrolling of the waters, before they were 
 
310 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 baptized into the flood. "We never could have known that 
 these miracles would issue in the baptism of Israel "into 
 Moses," unless we had been told so; for he had wrought 
 many miracles before without any such result. But we do 
 know that such was the result, now, because inspiration so 
 informs us, in terms than which language has none more 
 explicit. "All were baptized into Moses." 
 
 (2.) Usage demands this translation. — There is not an instance 
 in Classic literature in which ek stands thus related to ISanri^w, 
 but that the friends of the theory translate by, into. "We have 
 made no objection to this. But we insist, that what was right 
 then, cannot be wrong now. "Into " must remain into. 
 
 When JosephuS wrote, ^e^anriaiiivov eiq d.'^ai(T6-/j(Tcav xal umov — 
 
 it was a "baptism into stupor and sleep." (Conant.) The 
 translation must stand, though " stupor and sleep " give 
 place to "Moses." When the Christian Patrist, Clemens 
 Alex., wrote, elq r.opvdwj ^oKxi^ooGi — the translation found a 
 baptism '■'■into fornication." (Conant.) When the inspired 
 Apostle writes, ££C tov Mcjar^v i^anriaavro, — I know of nothing 
 in inspiration to change the force of a preposition, and there- 
 fore still read, "they were baptized into Moses." 
 
 (3.) The translation, '■'■unto Moses," is not satisfactory. It 
 may be so translated very frequently in other relations. It 
 may be so interpreted, here, as to give the true sense. But 
 it does not present the form of the original, nor lead to that 
 method of interpretation which the form suggests. It is also 
 objectionable, because in phrases of the same grammatical 
 form, the subject-matter being changed, the same translation 
 would not answer. If Eupolis must be baptized into the sea, 
 and not unto the sea, that he may be brought under its in- 
 fluence — drowned ; — then Israel must be baptized into Moses, 
 and not unto Moses, that they may be brought thoroughly 
 under his influence — subject to his headship. 
 
 (4.) To these considerations may be added the very pointed 
 testimony of some of the Patrists. 
 
 Origen, ii, 330, says: "He calls this baptism into Moses" — 
 baptismum hoc nominat in Moyse — " accomplished by the 
 cloud and by the sea, that thou, also, who art baptized into 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE RED SEA BAPTISM. 311 
 
 Christ, by the water and by the Holy Spirit, mayest know 
 that the Egyptians are following after thee." . . . 
 
 Basil M., iii, 428 : " That Israel was baptized into Moses, by 
 the cloud and by the sea, exhibiting types and delineating 
 for thee the truth about to be revealed in these last times; 
 but thou dost shun baptism, not typified by the sea, but per- 
 fected by the truth; not by the cloud, but by the Spirit; not 
 into Moses, a fellow-servant, but into Christ, the Creator — 
 
 ovx ei'; MwOffr/V rov 6;j.6doL)).ov, diXX^ elq XpcffTov tgv Troiyjaavra." 
 
 Basil M., iv, 121-5, writing of the Holy Spirit, states an ob- 
 jection against the equality of the Holy Spirit with the Father 
 and the Son, thus: Objector, "But although we are baptized 
 into him — ^ann^ofxeSa £i<; abro — it is not proper that, on that 
 account, he be ranked with God; for some were baptized 
 
 into Moses : ei'? rov MwvarjV Tcve<; iidaTZTCffSTjffav." He concludes, 
 
 after argument, "So, although any one be baptized into 
 Moses — Tjc ej'c Miooffr^v e^aTzriahj — the grace which is from the 
 Spirit at baptism, is not small." " It is customary for the 
 Scriptures to speak of Moses as the Law — thus : ' they have 
 Moses and the prophets.' Therefore speaking of the legal 
 baptism — rb vo[iudv j3dnTifffjia — he says : 'They were baptized 
 into Moses' — ijSanTMrjffav elc; rov Mwvavjv." " Moses was a type, 
 not of the Spirit, but of Christ." 
 
 1^0 one I think can doubt but that these learned Grecians 
 believed in a baptism into Moses. "While there is no evidence 
 that they had ever heard of a baptism into emjpty space, there 
 is conclusive testimony that they were familiar with the bap- 
 tism of Israel into their great Leader. 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 But what interpretation is to be given to the phrase "bap- 
 tized into Moses?" 
 
 It is obvious that the basis of the interpretation must be 
 found in the literal use of similar phraseology. In turning 
 to the literal use of ^anrcZo) we find several classes of baptisms 
 presenting material diversities. 
 
 1. There are baptisms of influence without intusposition 
 whether of fact, or imagination, or verbal suggestion. The 
 
312 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 phraseology before us cannot be grounded in baptisms of 
 this class, because there is nothing to meet its verbal form. 
 
 2. Other baptisms are of intusposition merely; they have 
 no attendant influence. This cannot be the baptism we 
 wish, for we must have influence. 
 
 3. Another class of baptisms have both intusposition and 
 influence; but the influence is an accident, unsought, un- 
 cared for. We will not take such a baptism if we can find 
 a better. 
 
 4. A better is found in yet another class of baptisms in 
 which intusposition is sought, solely for the sake of the in- 
 fluence thence resulting. For example, " They baptize into 
 the water a pole covered with pitch," /or the sake of catching 
 floating particles of gold. " Baptizing them into the lake,^' 
 for the jjurpose of drowning them. " Baptize it into milk," 
 for the sake of its emollient influence. "Baptizing it into 
 blood," for the purpose of securing the means wherewith to 
 write. (See Classic Baptism, p. 266.) In all these cases intus- 
 position is for the sake, and solely for the sake of influence. 
 This influence in every case is diverse in its nature, but com- 
 plete in its measure. The method of securing that influence 
 is an accident due to the nature of the case. In applying 
 these baptisms to that which is in hand, we reject, of course, 
 those things in which they differ; as respects 1. The agencies 
 in the baptism. 2. The forms of action introducing into 
 the baptism. 3. The objects to be baptized. 4. The ele- 
 ments within which the baptism takes place. 5. The nature 
 of the influence sought. 
 
 In none of these particulars do these baptisms agree. 
 Hence we see, how patent is the error which makes baptism 
 to consist in the performance of a form of action; and, also, 
 the error, in interpreting figurative baptisms, by converting 
 the source of influence into a pool of simple water. Why 
 not convert it into water impregnated with golden particles, 
 or into a vessel filled with milk, or into a pool of blood ? 
 The fact that intusposition in simple water, drowns — in gold 
 water, gilds — in milk, makes emollient — in blood, makes red — 
 is proof that figurative baptisms cannot be interpreted by 
 
INTERPRETATION OF THE RED SEA BAPTISM. 313 
 
 making any of these things the menstruum within which its 
 object is to be placed. All the peculiarities of any medium 
 must be eliminated. The conception must be made abstract. 
 "We thus secure the general idea of influence from intuspo- 
 sition. When, with this idea, we confront the phrase ei'? 
 MwuffTjv^ we at once recognize the purpose to express the 
 thought of such influence (as to its measure), as results from 
 the intusposition of an object within an enveloping medium. 
 It does not mean that Moses is such a medium in fact. It 
 does not mean that we shall imagine Moses to be such a 
 medium ; that we shall imagine two million men to be put 
 within him, or within a pool of water, milk, or blood, repre- 
 senting him, for the writer is not a lunatic. But it means, 
 by the verb and the preposition, to suggest an idea inherent 
 in these words in certain relations, and apply that idea to 
 the peculiarities of the case with which it is here connected. 
 In doing this we use the thought of intusposition merely to 
 reach that of influence, and having done so, throw it aside 
 like a scaffolding, as having served its purpose. 
 
 These suggestive words having fulfilled their function, we 
 enter upon ours as interpreters of the Apostle, and say : He 
 declares, that Israel was made subject to the controlling in- 
 fluence of Moses, by means of their miraculous deliverance ; 
 even as an object is made subject to the controlling influence 
 of any medium by which it is enveloped through an indefi- 
 nitely prolonged period of time. The resemblance is in the 
 measure of influence, not in the mode of accomplishment. 
 
 This interpretation is precisely what the exigency of the 
 case demands. Moses had j ust been appointed, as he claimed, 
 by divine authorit}'^ to be l»ead of an unorganized nation. 
 Their position was one of the greatest possible embarrass- 
 ment and peril. They had no established confidence in him. 
 It was essential that they should have the firmest conviction 
 of his divine mission. Under him they were to be organized 
 into a nation. Through him they were to receive a code of 
 stringent laws. By him they were to be introduced into a 
 highly developed religious system. With him they were to 
 encounter a long series of privations, perils, marches, and 
 
314 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 battles. As no other people in this world, before or since, 
 it was necessary that Israel should have confidence in their 
 Moses. The infinitely wise God selected this juncture to 
 accomplish this end, so essential to all his purposes in the 
 future. None could be more thoroughly adapted to the 
 purpose. The liberty and life of these millions are quiver- 
 ing in the balances. In their judgment the scales had already 
 gone down on the side of bondage and death. In their 
 anguish they cry to Jehovah. In their despair they upbraid 
 their Leader. Then, in that hour when all hope had fled, 
 that leader's rod is stretched over the sea and deliverance 
 bursts upon them. The cloud-witness to their Leader plants 
 itself between them and their enemies. The dreaded sea 
 opens a passage for them. Safe on the farther side, (the 
 waters closed, their enemies enclosed in them,) baptized into 
 Moses ^ through this divinely attesting miraculous deliverance by 
 sea and cloud, voice and timbrel proclaim Jehovah to be God, 
 and Moses to be his servant ! 
 
 We are now ready to answer Dr. Carson's question: "If 
 it was not a dry baptism into empty space, between water- 
 walls and under cloud-roof, what was the baptism?" It was 
 a baptism in which Jehovah was the baptizer; the cloud and 
 the sea were the conjoint agency; Israel's millions were the 
 subjects ; and Moses, (as claiming to be the Legate of Je- 
 hovah,) is the verbal element. In a word, this baptism de- 
 clares that Israel was, hereby, made subject to the controlling 
 injluence of Moses in his divine mission. 
 
 In making this declaration the apostle mprely repeats, in 
 other terms, the identical sentiment uttered by Moses himself, 
 "And the jjeople believed the Bord and his servant Moses." 
 
 Who would take the " dry baptism" of the theory, rather 
 than this grand baptism of inspiration ? Let others choose 
 as they may, I will choose, with the apostle, the baptism of 
 the fleshly Israel into the type-prophet Moses, shadowing 
 forth the baptism of the spiritual Israel into the antitype 
 Prophet — Christ the Lord ! 
 
 Such is the clear, rational and God-glorifying baptism at 
 the Red Sea as interpreted by inspiration through Paul. 
 
BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 315 
 
 THE EIVEE DIVIDED BY MIEACLB. 
 
 BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 
 II Kings 2 : 8. 
 
 *< And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together and 
 emote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so 
 that they two went over on dry ground." 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 . . . 'Ev TO) 'lopddvTj Panrt.ad!J.£voq^ knel zrjv di" o5aToc Tzapado^oripav 
 did^aacv ^dizriaiia^ wq Tzponaps6iiJ.e6a^ (h'^paaev 6 IlauXoq. , . . 
 
 " But this, also, is to be observed, that Elias, when about to 
 be received up into heaven, having taken his mantle, and wrap- 
 ped it together, he smote the water, which divided hither and 
 thither J and they both passed through, to wit, he and Elisba; 
 for he is made more fitted to be taken up, having baptized 
 himself by the Jordan, seeing that Paul called, as we have be- 
 fore-shown, a more wonderful passage through water, baptism. 
 Through this same Jordan Elisha passes to receive the gift, by 
 Elias, which he desired, saying: 'Let a double measure of thy 
 spirit rest upon me.' And perhaps, for this reason, he received 
 doubly the spirit of Elias, because he twice passed through the 
 Jordan, once with Elias and a second time when, having received 
 the mantle of Elias, he ' smote the water, and said. Where is the 
 God of Elias ? And he smote the waters, and they divided hither 
 • and thither.' " — Origen, iv, 280. 
 
 . . . ^Hliaq dvaXa[j.jjdveTat, dXX" 6o y_uip\z udazoq ' TzpaJrov yap 8ca- 
 fiatvet xov Uopddvyjv* elra cnnjjXaTel rov oupavov. . . . 
 
 "If any one desires to know why grace is given by means of 
 water and not by means of any other of the elements, search- 
 ing the divine Scriptures he will find out. For water is some 
 great thing and the best of the four visible elements of the 
 world. Heaven is the dwelling-place of angels, but the heavens 
 are of the waters. The earth is the home of men, but the 
 earth is of the waters, and before everything, of the things 
 which were made during the creation of the six days, the Spirit 
 of God was upborne above the water. Water was the beginning 
 of the world, and the Jordan was the beginning of the Gospels. 
 
316 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Deliverance to Israel from Pharaoh was by means of ((Jtct) the 
 sea, and deliverance of the world from sin is by means of (^ta), 
 the washing of water, by (iv) the word of God. Wherever there 
 was a covenant with any persons, there was water. After the 
 flood a covenant was made with Noah. A covenant was made 
 with Israel out of Mount Sinai, but with water, and scarlet wool 
 and hyssop. Elias was taken up, but not without water, for first 
 he passes through {dia^aivei) the Jordan, then rides by horses 
 to heaven. The high priest is first washed, then sacrifices. 
 Aaron was first washed, then was high priest. For how shall 
 he enter in to pray for others, who is not yet purified by means 
 of (pta) water. And the laver placed within the tabernacle was 
 a symbol of baptism." — Cyril^ 433. 
 
 Translation. 
 
 The translation of h raJ UopddvTj is made "6^ the Jordan," 
 because the case seems to demand it. 1. The baptism was 
 effected by a peculiar influence, attributed to water, and not 
 by water, as a simple fluid. 2. The baptism was effected by 
 Jordan, as a whole, and not by any portion of it. 
 
 But if the translation "m the Jordan," be insisted upon, 
 then, 1. The phrase iv tw 'Iop8d)^7j does not, of any necessity, 
 involve a particle of water. 2. More than this: (SaTtrt^^m may 
 be conjoined with the phrase ^v r<i) Uupddvrj^ and still there be 
 no dipping into water, no covering with water, and no ap- 
 plication of water to the person in any form, or in any meas- 
 ure. 3. What is most important of all, it teaches us, that , 
 after we have been told that a person has been baptized, and 
 after we have been told the place of his baptism, and that 
 place a river — " in the Jordan. " — we cannot possibly, hereby, 
 know the quo mode of the baptism. If any theorist should 
 be told that "two men were baptized in the Jordan," and 
 asked, if he could tell how it was done ? the answer would 
 be prompt, and in the language of Carson, " Certainly I 
 know hoic it was done. They were either dipj^ed into the 
 water, or whoever says 'they were baptized in the Jordan,' 
 tells a falsehood." Unfortunately, however, for this know- 
 ing theorist and his teachers, Elias and Elisha were both 
 "baptized in the Jordan," (as they insist,) and yet neither 
 
BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 317 
 
 was " dipped " into the water, or even sprinkled with it. 
 Classic Baptism (pp. 352, 353, et 'passim) insists upon the 
 truth, that (ianriZoj is not a self-interpreting word, as to the 
 modus operandi in effecting a baptism. And here we have 
 that position confirmed. If Cyril does tell us that the pro- 
 phets were "baptized in the Jordan," the statement leaves 
 us in Egyptian night as to the mode of the baptism. If we 
 answer in what mode they were baptized, and are guided 
 by the Greek Archbishop of Jerusalem, this will be our re- 
 ply : " They were baptized in the Jordan by walking along 
 its dry channel, within reach of that purifying influence 
 imparted to the element water, (and not to earth, or air, 
 or fire,) at the beginning of the creation, when ' the Holy 
 Spirit moved upon the face of the waters.' " And this was 
 their mode of baptism. A new style for the theorists. 
 
 It is evident that by the translation "m the Jordan," you 
 meet a local fact which is to be supplemented by the agency 
 effecting the baptism. The translation, "by the Jordan," 
 responds to the influential agency exerted by the Jordan in 
 accomplishing the baptism. The first translation, if adopted, 
 must be supplemented by the last — in the Jordan and by the 
 Jordan influence. 
 
 Patristic Interpretation. 
 
 In speaking of the translation, we have been compelled to 
 • trespass somewhat on the interpretation. The baptism being 
 that of Origen and Cyril, the interpretation must follow their 
 language and sentiments. If there be any persons better 
 qualified than these Grecians, to speak with authority as to 
 the use of a Greek word, or to teach us the true nature of a 
 baptism, I do not know who they are. 
 
 ORIGEN. 
 
 Origen says that Elias was baptized, and that he was bap- 
 tized by passing through the Jordan. The question is, as 
 to the nature of this baptism. Was it a dipping, or an en- 
 velopment, or by a controlling influence from which envel- 
 opment is eliminated? We must be guided in our judgment 
 
318 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 by his language and known sentiments. From his usage of 
 the word there can be no appeal. He was a Greek of the 
 Greeks. That there was no dipping, in fact, is unquestioned. 
 That there was no actual envelopment, is also conceded. 
 That there was a change in the condition of Ellas, fitting 
 him for heaven, is a matter of express statement. That this 
 change of condition was efi'ected, instrumentally, by passing 
 along the dry channel of the river, is also matter of distinct 
 statement. 
 
 "We say that the baptism did not consist in any modal 
 movement of the body, nor in any modal position occupied 
 by the body of Elias. 
 
 Proof of this is found: 1. In the fact that the modal act, 
 moving the body of the prophet, was walking, and not dip- 
 ping. 
 
 2. In the fact that there was no intus-position. Interposi- 
 tion there was, or rather intermotio7i. But I have never 
 understood that the one or the other was a baptism. 
 
 3. ISTo physical movement or position will answer for the 
 baptism of Origen. These things wonH fit the soul for heaven. 
 But this was the baptism which Elias received. The bap- 
 tism, then, was one of influence, changing condition. Proof 
 of this is found : 
 
 1. In the reference to the parallel passage of the Israelites 
 through the divided sea. Origen deduces no physical mer- 
 sion from this passage; but declares, that through the influ- 
 ence of the miracle providing this passage, under the instru- 
 mentality of Moses, they were "baptized into Moses." So, 
 Elias was baptized through the influence of this sacred stream, 
 purifying him and making him meet for heaven. The holy 
 character of the Jordan, and its power over body and soul, 
 is developed in the paragraph following the quotation under 
 consideration. He there argues against the " offence " which 
 might be taken in consequence of its being stated that the 
 Jordan was " struck." That river being a " type " of Christ, 
 " who is our Jordan," is too sacred to be struck by the pro- 
 phet. The difficulty is met by a reference to the smiting of 
 the rock in the wilderness — "And that rock was Christ." 
 
BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 319 
 
 He farther states that, "As there is none good but one, even 
 God the Father, so there is no river good, but the Jordan, 
 which is able to cleanse from leprosy him that washes his 
 soul, with faith, in Jesus." This stream, of such marvellous 
 virtue, was able to baptize for heaven, him who walked be- 
 tween its waters. 
 
 2. Farther evidence that this baptism was one resulting 
 from influence, changing the condition, is found in the sug- 
 gestion, that Elisha received "a double measure" of the 
 spirit of Elias, by passing twice through the Jordan. 
 
 CYRIL. 
 
 Cyril's conception is the same as that of Origen. It was 
 efl'ected by water, as an instrumental agency, and not by 
 water or "empty space," as capable of receiving an object 
 dipped into it. The labored effort of Cyril to show the pe- 
 culiar virtue of water above every other element, settles the 
 character of this baptism, and at the same time settles the 
 claims of the theory. If the idea which this Patrist had of a 
 baptism, was a dipping or a covering, why does he assume 
 the task of showing that water has a better quality for a dip- 
 ping or a covering, than has fire, earth, or air? Why does 
 he attempt to prove that this quality was given to it by " the 
 Spirit of God moving upon the waters " in the beginning of 
 creation ? Was this necessary to qualify water to cover, or to 
 be penetrated by an object dipped ? Cyril believed that there 
 was a power divinely communicated to water, to purify the 
 soul. He believed that this power belonged to it, as water, 
 irrespective of the mode of its use. This is clearly shown 
 by his reasoning as to its presence in every covenant trans- 
 action; its use in the washing of the high priest; in the 
 symbol character of the laver; and by the statement that in 
 these transactions the water was used as an instrumental 
 means (^'«), having " magna vis" — a great virtue — and not 
 as a fluid, for dipping into. 
 
 HARMONY WITH CLASSIC USAGE. 
 
 In this usage of fianni^u) by these Greek writers, there is no 
 
320 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 departure, not even by a hair's-breadth, from the usage of 
 the Classics. 
 
 In Classic Baptism (p. 316, &c.) it has been shown that 
 baptisms are effected by controlling influences, without any 
 conception of intusposition. This evidence has been ac- 
 cepted as satisfactory by competent judges. It has been 
 neither refuted nor denied by any. The baptisms of Elias 
 and of Elisha, are of this character. As from wine, drmik, 
 there proceeds an intoxicatieig-baptizing influence; and as 
 from an opiate, eaten, there proceeds a soporific-baptizing 
 influence; so, from walking between the divided waters of 
 the type Christ Jordan, there proceeds a purifying-baptizing 
 influence, as from the person of the antitype Jordan. 
 
 The Theory. — What, now, is the claim which the theory 
 presents to secui-e this crossing of the Jordan for her list of 
 dippings? What can be more conclusive than her argument? 
 "Is it not clear, that the walking down one side of the river, 
 and walking up the other side of the river, is elegantly put, 
 by the rhetorical figure of ' a misuse of words,' for a dip- 
 ping?" Perhaps so. At least, I think that the argument is 
 very evidently concluded. 
 
 I only add that, in this additional "dry dipping," the 
 water-walls of the baptistery have lost their " cloud-roof," 
 and the walking-dipping has to be without "a covering." 
 
 PASSAGE OF THE EIVEE BY MIKACLE. 
 
 BAPTISM INTO JOSHUA. 
 Joshua 3 : 16, 17. 
 
 " The waters which came down from above stood and rose up 
 upon a heap very far from the city Adam, that is beside Zaretan, 
 and those that came down toward the sea of the plain, even the 
 salt sea, failed and were cut off; and the people passed over right 
 against Jericho. 
 
 " And the priests that bare the ark of the covenant of the 
 Lord stood firm on dry ground in the midst of Jordan, and all 
 
BAPTISM INTO JOSHUA. 321 
 
 the Israelites passed over on dry ground, until all the people 
 were passed clean over Jordan." 
 
 Interpretation. 
 
 " Et sicut de prioribus dictum est, quia, ' omnes in Moyse bap- 
 tizati sunt in nube et in mari,' ita et de Jesu dicatur, quia omnes 
 in Jesu baptizati sunt in Spiritu sancto et aqua." 
 
 "And as it was said concerning the fathers, that 'all were 
 baptized into Moses by the cloud and by the sea,' so, also, it 
 may be said of Jesus (Joshua), that all were baptized into Joshua 
 Dy the Holy Spirit and water." — Origen, ii, 743. 
 
 "De iis quidem qui Mare Eubrum transierunt .... quod per 
 baptismum celebratur." 
 
 "Of those who passed over the Eed Sea, the Apostle says, 
 that ' all were baptized into Moses by the cloud and by the sea.' 
 But of those who passed over the Jordan we may also declare 
 in like manner, that 'all were baptized into Jesus (Joshua) by 
 the Jordan.' So that those things which are related as done in 
 the Jordan, possess the form of a Sacrament, which is celebrated 
 by baptism."— On^ew, ii, 847. 
 
 "Otc ejmv av xdX Tzepi rauri/jg 6 TlauXoz' Ob 6iXu) ufiaq dyvosTv, MeXfot, 
 on ol TZUT^pei; r^piuJv Ttdvreq dcd rou ^lopddvou dir^XSov, xai Tzdvzsq el<; rov 
 'Ivjffouv il3a7CTtffavTO iv ru) TzveufiaTt, xal nora/ioj. 
 
 "Paul might say of this: 'I do not wish you, brethren, to be 
 ignorant that all our fathers passed over through the Jordan, 
 and all were baptized into Jesus (Joshua) by the Spirit and the 
 river.'" — Origen, iv, 276. 
 
 . . . . To de el^ 'iTjffouv ^TZTifffia, h t<x> dXrjiwi; yXuxei xai TzorifKU 
 norafiu), 7:oXXd k'^ei 7ra/5 ixelvo i^aipera. . . . 'j&v ydp tu) ^anriffaffSat e^c 
 'iTjffouv yvwaofieOa, on d£b<z ^(ov iw ij[uv iart. 
 
 "But Jesus (Joshua) who succeeded Moses, was a type of 
 Jesus Christ who succeeded the economy of the law by the 
 preaching of the Gospel. Wherefore, though they all were 
 baptized into Moses by the cloud and the sea, their baptism has 
 something bitter and unpleasant, because still fearing their ene- 
 mies. . . . But the baptism into Jesus (Joshua) by a truly sweet 1 
 and potable river, has many choice things above that. . . . And 
 Joshua sail to the people, ' Sanctify yourselves, for to-morrow 
 
 21 
 
322 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 the Lord will do wonders among you.' . . . And the Lord said 
 to Jesus (Joshua), 'This day will I begin to magnify thee in the 
 sight of all Israel, that they may know that as I loas with Moses, 
 so 1 will be with thee.' 'Come hither and hear the word of the 
 Lord our God ; by this shall ye know that the living God is 
 among you.' For by the baptism into Jesus, we know that the 
 living God is in us. And the Lord acknowledges the reproach 
 of Egypt to be taken away in the day of the baptism into Jesus 
 (Joshua), when Jesus (Joshua) thoroughly purified (nepisxdOatpev) 
 the children of Israel." — Origen, iv, 277. 
 
 LIKENESS AND UNLIKENESS TO THE RED SEA BAPTISM. 
 
 There are very obvious points of sitnilarity, and some of 
 dissimilarity, between this Jordan baptism and the Red Sea 
 baptism. By considering the two, both in their agreement 
 and disagreement, we shall find valuable aid in determining 
 the question — What is the real character of the baptism? 
 
 Let us look at some of the points of difference which most 
 concern us. 
 
 Dr. Carson insists, (without historical statement to sustain 
 him, and contrary to facts so far as related,) that Israel was 
 in the cloud, on the ground of a possible meaning of a prepo- 
 sition used by the apostle in connection with this transaction. 
 And this, to get that for which his theory makes inexorable 
 demand — " immersion in the cloud." He, also, insists (con- 
 trary to express historical statement,) in roofing the water- 
 walls w^ith the cloud, because of another preposition used by 
 the apostle, without giving the shadow of proof that Paul 
 had any reference to this particular occasion. And this to 
 secure a quasi "immersion in water." 
 
 Every one must feel that such absolute resting on (not to 
 say wresting of) doubtful words, and such antagonism to an 
 historical record, would never be ventured upon except in the 
 direst extremity. What shall be done, then, in the .case of 
 an otherwise ditto baptism, to meet the demands of a theory, 
 which (like a famished ogre that can feed on nothing else) is 
 ever crying for dipping, dipping, when there is no "m nube" 
 or "5m6 nube" out of which to construct a dipping? 
 
 There is one water-wall which "heaped up" looks down 
 
BAPTISM INTO JOSHUA. 323 
 
 upon this baptism of Israel, and by its miracle charactdr is 
 instrumental in its accomplishment; but the other has run 
 away and " immersed itself in the abysses of the sea — maris 
 gurgitibus fuisset immersa." There is then a lack of wall 
 whereon to rest the cloud-roof, even if any cloud were pres- 
 ent. The Red Sea baptistery, then, must be dispensed with. 
 And with it, I suppose, must go "death, burial, and resur- 
 rection." And well they may, for this is a joyous baptism 
 into Joshua Jesus. JSTo enemies are pressing on from be- 
 hind. The privations of the wilderness have all ceased. 
 The laud of promise is before them. How different this 
 baptism at high noon, from that baptism by deep midnight! 
 How different is baptismal subjection to the stern represent- 
 ative of Law, from the baptismal influence proceeding from 
 the lovely type of a Gospel Saviour! But the question re- 
 turns: Seeing that the baptistery is gone, what shall be 
 done for a dipping? I cannot tell; unless, indeed, after the 
 hard experience of the theory, it should conclude to share 
 in that, only, immersion of which Origen speaks, and float 
 down with the onflowing waters until it should flnd welcome 
 rest, — ^^ Salsi maris gurgitibus iminersa." ISTo little specific 
 gravity is required for a baptism in those heavy waters; but 
 there is quite enough of leaden error in this theory to give 
 it an honest immersion in the deepest depths of a sympathiz- 
 ing Dead Sea. 
 
 E". B. This Greekly immersion of the theory, by Origen, 
 will give to it " death and burial," but will allow of no " resur- 
 rection." 'No dipping can be found in this " immersa." 
 
 THE BAPTISM TAUGHT BY OKIGEN. 
 
 "We will now seek for some better baptism than that of the 
 theory. 
 
 Inspiration does not speak of this transaction as a baptism. 
 But any one who should reflect upon the perfect accord be- 
 tween the leading features of the passage of the Red Sea 
 under the leadership of Moses, and the passage of the Jordan 
 under the leadership of Joshua, would feel that if the foi-raer 
 were a baptism into Moses, the latter must be a baptism into 
 
324 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Joshua. As the exigencies of the case demanded divine in- 
 tervention to baptize Israel into — make thoroughly subject 
 unto — Moses, so, like exigencies demand that they shall be 
 baptized into — be brought thoroughly under the influence 
 of his divinely appointed successor. And this is done by 
 affixing the divine seal to his commission, through a most 
 stupendous miracle wrought under his instrumentality. The 
 object, "to magnify thee in the sight of all Israel, that they 
 may know that as I was with Moses, so will I be with thee," 
 and the means, "to-morrow the Lord will do wonders among 
 you," were distinctly stated. History shows that the means 
 were adequate to the result — " And Israel served the Lord 
 all the days of Joshua." After reflecting on the language 
 of Paul interpreting the passage of the Red Sea as issuing 
 in a baptism into Moses, it occurred to me, that by parity 
 of reasoning Israel might be said to have been baptized into 
 Joshua at the crossing of the Jordan. The conviction of 
 the propriety of using such language in the case, was not 
 diminished when I found, subsequently, that Origen had 
 been led to the same conclusion a thousand years before me. 
 He declares, a dozen times over, that the baptism was "into 
 Joshua." The theory, and everybody else, admits that no 
 language is more competent to point out the element of 
 baptism than /JaTrr/Cw ei<:. And, unless the most satisfactory 
 reasons to the contrary can be given, it must be regarded as 
 pointing it out in fact. 
 
 If any one objects to Joshua being the element into which 
 two million men are " dipped," my reply is: I object, also, to 
 any such nonsense. Such brobdignagian figures belong to the 
 theory. I claim "no soul for poetry " like this. It belongs 
 to the lake frog class. But I do claim, that Joshua is the ver- 
 bally suggested element, as pointing out the source whence 
 influence, under God, is to proceed, bringing these millions 
 into subjection to all the rights of his heaven-given and di- 
 vinely-attested commission. And as illustrative of this ver- 
 bally suggested inness, I may refer to the language of Origen 
 in the last quotation, — "For by (^i-) the baptism into Jesus 
 we know that the living God is in us." ISTow, is it any easier 
 
BAPTISM INTO JOSHUA. 325 
 
 for Him who fills all space to get within these bodies of ours 
 than it is for all Israel to get within Joshua? It will be 
 time enough to object to Origen's " baptism into Joshua," 
 when objection is made to his — "living God entering into 
 us." And whoever objects to the one, or the other, will 
 probably be set down as belonging to the crassissima Minerva 
 class. 
 
 Take a more modern parallel passage which happens to be 
 under my eye. 
 
 Professor Tholuck, speaking of John Calvin says, "In the 
 Pauline Epistles he merges himself in the spirit of the Apostle, 
 and becoming one with him," &c. Now, although Calvin 
 was not a very stout man, yet as Paul is reputed to be a very 
 short one, it would be a tax upon the imagination to con- 
 ceive how the Genevese reformer could merse himself inside 
 of the Apostle to the Gentiles. Most probably, any who 
 undertake the feat will give it up unaccomplished. Those 
 for whom the German Professor wrote will be content to 
 understand (by this verbal suggestion of sources of influence 
 and a mode by which that influence is developed) that the 
 more modern Paul came thoroughly under the influence of 
 the inspired Paul — was baptized into Paul — came so con- 
 trollingly under his influence as to "become one with him." 
 
 This baptism will answer quite well for the " baptism of 
 Israel into Joshua." If they are so subjected to his influence 
 as to "become one with him," Origen will not ask for the 
 millions to get either inside of him, or of a pool of water. 
 
 But there is other phraseology than that employed at the 
 Red Sea baptism, in connection with the instrumental means, 
 which gives additional evidence to the correctness of the 
 view now presented. 
 
 THE INSTRUMENTAL AGENCY. 
 
 1. It may be remarked, in general, that the expression 
 ^aTzriZii) iv is not the usual form for indicating the element 
 within which baptism takes place. I do not remember an 
 instance among Classic writers where, with the uncom- 
 pounded verb, it is so employed in connection with a fluid. 
 
326 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 It is used, I believe, twice indicating the body as that in 
 which the soul is mersed. 
 
 2. This phrase, jSanz'XM sv, is emploj^ed with varied signifi- 
 cance. (1.) In the rare use just indicated, — " the soul bap- 
 tized in (^y) the body." (2.) Expressing locality, place where 
 the action occurred. Origen speaks in this connection, of 
 a baptism "in (^i^) Bethabara," simple locality. (3.) It ex- 
 presses a period of time within which a baptism took place. 
 Hippolytus speaks of a baptism "m i^v) that very night." 
 
 3. It marks the condition of things during the continuance 
 of which a baptism occurred. Thus we are told of a baptism 
 "in (^v) a calm." 
 
 4. It indicates the agency or instrumentality by which a 
 baptism is effected. 
 
 Origen says, the baptism under consideration was " by 
 (^v) the Holy Spirit and water." 
 
 This last statement is, of course, denied by friends of the 
 theory. It must then be sustained by evidence. As it is 
 admitted that iv may have the force attributed to it, proof 
 in that direction is unnecessary. We are required to show 
 that a general possibility becomes concrete in a particular 
 necessity. 
 
 In attempting this task we remark, that the only antago- 
 nistic senses to that claimed are, 1. Locality, 2. Inness. If 
 these are disproved, then the other, agency, is established. 
 
 1. The matter of locality is settled at once. " The Holy 
 Spirit" is not a locality. "Water," the abstract element, 
 is no more so. We have done then with ev as representing 
 the place where. 
 
 2. As to '^inness," I remark that this confronts us with 
 these trifling embarrassments. (1.) Making two baptisms 
 out of one "in the Holy Sjnrit" and "in water." (2.) One 
 in a i^erson and the other in a thing. (3.) The one a spiritual 
 baptism, the other a physical baptism. This is absurd. It 
 is farther absurd to attribute such a statement to Orio;en. 
 (1.) Because there was nothing to call for a baptism of Israel 
 " in the Holj^ Ghost." (2.) Because Origen did not believe 
 in any such baptism in Old Testament times. (3.) Because 
 
BAPTISM INTO JOSHUA. 327 
 
 it makes Origen talk, I will not say like a theorist, but cer- 
 tainly like one bereft of his reason, to say, that all Israel 
 were baptized in water, w^hen the miracle was wrought to 
 keep them out of the water. 
 
 If such are the results of attributing to ^v the duty of point- 
 ing out the element within which the baptism takes place, 
 we must excuse this particle from any such duty. 
 
 The field, then, is left unoccupied for Iv, instrumental. 
 
 In this sense Origen uses it in close connection with this 
 transaction. "Elisha desired to receive a gift through Elias 
 — ^d.pt<T/j.a Scd 'Hkloo;" and it is added, "he received the gift by 
 
 the spirit of Elias upon him — ■/a^:o-/xa kv meu/JLart ^HXioo If iauTov." 
 
 Here ^ta and h seem to be used, substantially, with the same 
 force. And this suggests the perfectly parallel passage re- 
 specting jifa/^iff/jtccra, given by the Holy Spirit — '^c Std rod Hveu- 
 fiaroq didorat Xoyoq ao<pla'Z . . . aXXo} bk japlaixaxa iaiiaxuiv^ kv to) awrcu 
 
 JJveuiiari. Here, again, we have Std and h hiterchanged, and 
 expressive of the same idea of agency in bestowing "gifts." 
 
 If, now, agency suits the passage, we have a possible sense 
 converted into an imperative sense, by the exigency of the 
 case. And, 1, There is no embarrassment in saying, "Israel 
 was baptized into Joshua by the Holy Spirit and water," be- 
 cause these two agencies can cooperate, under this miraculous 
 working, in accomplishing this great result. 2. Divine power 
 was not only necessary to work the miracle, but to influence 
 the minds of the people to secure the result. " The Holy 
 Spirit," then, and the miraculously heaped up "water" were 
 necessary — conjoined — agencies in effecting the baptism. 
 
 In another passage Origen says, "by the Spirit and the 
 river." The whole "river" was employed in this baptism, 
 without one drop being used, even so much as to sprinkle. 
 It was a "dry baptism," by a river of "heaped up waters." 
 And as they passed over Jordan, gazing upon that crystal 
 monument, ever rising higher and higher, witness from 
 God, magnifying their new Leader, its influence brought 
 them out of that condition of forty years' subjection to their 
 great Moses, and brought them into a like condition of life- 
 long subjection to his illustrious successor. 
 
328 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 The "baptism into Joshua, by the Spirit aud the river," 
 "by the Holy Spirit and the water," was complete. 
 
 Whatever specific difference there may be between this 
 baptism and Classic baptisms, the principle governing the 
 use of the word is essentially the same. 
 
 SACRIFICE CONSUMED BY MIEACLB. 
 
 BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 
 I Kings 18 : 32-38. 
 
 "And with the stones he built an altar in the name of the 
 Lord; and he made a trench about the altar, as great as would 
 contain two measures of seed. 
 
 "And he put the wood in order, and cut the bullock in pieces, 
 and laid him on the wood, and said. Fill four barrels with water, 
 and pour it on the burnt sacrifice and on the wood. 
 
 "And he said, Do it the second time. And they did it the 
 second time. And he said. Do it the third time. And they did 
 it the third time. 
 
 "And the water ran round about the altar; and he filled the 
 trench, also, with water. . . . 
 
 " Then the fire of the Lord fell and consumed the burnt sacri- 
 fice, and the wood, and the stones, and the dust, and licked up 
 the water that was in the trench." 
 
 Ilodev dk ufxTv TzeniffrsueTat ^HXiav /SanTiffetv zov kXeuffo/ievov^ oude zd Im 
 TCL TOO Ouaiaazripiou ^uXa, xazd rou? zou ^A^ad/i ypovouq, 3e6;i£va Xouzpoo, 
 iva lxxau69j Imwavivzoq Iv TtupX zoo liuptou, ^aitziaavzoq; ^Enr/.eAeuezac ydp 
 ToT? hpeufft. zouzo Tzuir^aai. . . . 
 
 '0 roiVuv fj.7j auzbq ^OKziaaq Tore, . . . -Kwq fianzil^siv eixeXXe ; Xpiffzbq 
 oov 3ux iv udazi ^aizziZet, d/lA' 6i pa6rjzcu. duzou' iauzu) dk zyjpel zo dyicu 
 nveu/iazi ^aizzi^eiv xcu Tzupt. 
 
 " But why do you believe that the Elias to come will baptize, 
 when he did not, in the time of Ahab, baptize the victim upon 
 the wood of the altar, which needed cleansing, at the appearing 
 of the Lord by fire? For he commands the priests to do this. 
 . . . How, then, is he, coming according to the words of Malachi, 
 
BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 329 
 
 to baptize, since be did not baptize then, but committed the 
 work to others ? Christ, therefore, did not baptize with water, 
 but his disciples. He reserves to himself the baptizing by the 
 Holy Spirit and fire." — Origen,iy, 241. 
 
 ^'E8et^£V ^HXiaq rod ^anriaixaroq rrjv Iff^hv knl rod ^co/iou rwv dkoxaorw- 
 fxdzMv 6u did. Tou Tzupoq, dXla di vdaroq rrjv Suaiav 6XoxaoT(Uffag. . . . 
 
 "Elias has shown the power of baptism by burning the sacrifice 
 upon the altar of burnt-oiferings, not by means of fire, but by 
 means of water. For although the nature of fire is opposed to 
 that of water^ yet when the water is mystically poured, thrice, 
 upon the altar, the fire begins, and kindles a flame, as though it 
 were oil." — Basil Magnus, iii, 428. 
 
 ^E/co rpe'iq kircxXuffsiq xard raJv a^tddxiov, alt; xaSispaxrw ttjv 6u<Tiav, 
 udari nup kyetpcov, to Ttapado^orarov , xai roue TZpocpyjraq xara^aXa) rv^q 
 diff^uvyj(;, /wffrTjpiou duvd/j.£C ^pwfxsvog. 
 
 " I have three overpourings upon the wood, with which I will 
 hallow the sacrifice, kindling fire by water, which is most wonder- 
 ful ; and I will cast down the false prophets, using the power of 
 the mystery." — Gregory Naz., ii, 421. 
 
 "Siquidem baptismus velut ignis quidam peccata consumit; 
 quia Christus in igne et Spiritu baptizat. Denique hunc typum 
 legis in Eegnorum libris, ubi Elias super altare ligna imposuit, 
 et dixit ut mitterent super de hydriis aquam et dixit : . . . . et 
 cum manaret aqua, precatus est Elias, et ignis descendit de coelo. 
 Tu es homo super altare, qui ablueris aqua, cujus exuritur culpa, 
 ut vita renovetur. . . . 
 
 " Typum baptismatis demonstravit Elias, et ccelum aperuit. 
 . . . Nemo enim nisi per aquam et Spiritum ascendit in regnum 
 eoelorum." 
 
 "Since baptism, like a fire, consumes sins, for Christ baptizes 
 by fire and Spirit. Finally, thou readest this type in the books 
 of the Kings, where Elias placed wood upon the altar, and di- 
 rected that they should cast over it water from water-pots, . . . 
 and when the water flowed, Elias prayed, and fire descended 
 from heaven. Thou, O man ! art upon the altar, who shalt be 
 cleansed by water, whose sin is burned up that thy life may be 
 renewed. 
 
 " Elias showed a type of baptism, and opened heaven, which 
 had been shut three years and six months. . . . For no one can 
 
330 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 ascend into the kingdom of heaven except by {per) water and 
 the Spirit."— ^mirose, i, 727, 728. 
 
 EXPERIMENTUM CRUCIS. 
 
 This baptism of the altar furnishes a crucial test for the 
 theory. I have never known a friend of the theory volun- 
 tarily to speak of this baptism. Whenever their attention 
 is called to it by others, they approach it as reluctantly as 
 the victim comes to the altar where death glitters in the 
 edge of the sacrificial axe. 
 
 There is a painful foreboding of some fatal blow. 
 
 True, there are scores of cases which do as fatally brain 
 the theory; but some word, or thought, or thing, by its pres- 
 ence or absence, or some figure, rational or irrational, gives 
 material out of which to raise a cloud, under whose shadow 
 there may be a way of escape. Here, from the nature of 
 the transaction, from the locality where it takes place, and 
 from the fulness and explicitness of language, there is less 
 opportunity to mystify the statement, or to elude the dam- 
 aging blow. At the sea-coast baptism, where " dip, and noth- 
 ing but clip," seemed hopelessly to perish, he was charmingly 
 revived by a potion of poetry applied through "covered and 
 bare!" At the Red Sea baptism, where there was no dip- 
 ping, and no chance for poetry through a tidal wave, two 
 prepositions [iv and ot^o) are converted into architects, and 
 lo! in a trice, a baptistery arises, within which " death, bur- 
 ial, and resurrection" are enacted secundum artem. In the 
 baptism of Elijah the roof is taken from the baptistery, but 
 then there is the going down and the coming up, which an- 
 swers, in poetry, for "dip," just as well as "covered and 
 bare." And, in the baptism under Joshua, although the 
 baptistery is still farther dilapidated by the loss of one of its 
 w^alls, still there is the bed of the river left, and that will 
 still " darkly shadow " a grave and burial. All this being 
 admitted to be unanswerable (and, in all good conscience, I 
 can say that I do most sincerely think that it is very embar- 
 rassing to answer such flights of poetry, and such feats of 
 architecture), we come to the case in hand. 
 
BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 331 
 
 Here we have no tidal wave to poetize this altar baptism. 
 We have no prepositions wherewith to build water-houses 
 without any water in them. We have no bed of the sea to 
 convert into a sepulchre. We have no channel of a river 
 into which we may "go down," and out of which we may 
 "come up." We are not even at the edge of a pool where 
 a baptism must be by dipping, or the inspired writer "tells 
 a falsehood." We are not introduced to a baptisai by 
 "washing" at a tent door to be silenced by the revelation, 
 that "washing may be by dipping, and that baptism wash- 
 ing must be by dipping." We have not a baptism by sprin- 
 kling, to be pointed to "a washing" at some other time and 
 place as the baptism, for " sprinkling cannot baptize." We 
 have not the case of hot iron baptized by cold water poured 
 upon it, to hear the smiling solution — " the pouring Avas long 
 enough to cover it, and the covering was the baptism." We 
 have no one baptized by an opiate pill, to be schooled in that 
 rhetoric which dips sleepers, by figure, into pools of water. 
 We are on the top of old Carmel. Seas, rivers, pools, water- 
 walls, clouds, dry channels, goings down and comings up, 
 have all disappeared from the scene. We have indeed a 
 washing; but we are expressly told that it was without a 
 dipping. And we have a pouring; but we are as explicitly 
 told that it was not "continued long enough to cover." 
 
 What is to be done with this Carmel baptism ? 
 
 Let the friends of the theory answer : 
 
 ^'- Any child can understand it means a dipping.'^ — Carson. 
 
 On this very remarkable baptism Dr. Carson has the fol- 
 lowing paragraph : 
 
 "Dr. Miller (of Princeton) tells us that Origen was con- 
 temporary with Cyprian, and that he, in commenting on 
 I Kings 18: 33, tells us that 'Elijah baptized the wood on 
 the altar.' This proceeds on a principle I have often ex- 
 plained and illustrated. Every child knows that our word 
 immerse may be used in the same way." 
 
 And this is all that Dr. Carson has tc say on a case which, 
 on the face of it, utterly destroys his theory as to the mean- 
 
332 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 ing of ^aTTTi^u), and nullifies the " demonstration " which sums 
 up his life labor. 
 
 It seems impossible that Dr. C. could ever have read the 
 passage which he so cavalierly expounds. There is not the 
 shadow of evidence for the baptism turning on the quantity 
 of water used. The amount of water was to satisfy all, that 
 there was no concealed fire. The use of the word baptize 
 contemplates a wholly different aspect of the altar and sac- 
 rifice. They needed "cleansing" {Xoorpuv) to be acceptable 
 to God. 
 
 But let us look at that " principle" so often explained that 
 it has become too wearisome even to state. 
 
 It is probable that he refers to the explanation given of 
 the sea-coast baptism, in which he says, — "When this word 
 {^amiZui) is applied to an object lying under water, but not 
 actually dipped, the mode essentially denoted by it is as truly 
 expressed as in any other instance of its occurrence — figur- 
 ing the object which is successively bare and buried under 
 water, as being dipped when it is covered, and as emerging 
 when it is bare. Can any child, then, be at a loss to learn 
 from this that baptism means to lay under water?" 
 
 The Academiciens of Paris having been asked by Dr. 
 Franklin, " why, when a fish was put into a vessel filled with 
 water it would not overflow?" very learned answers were 
 given, based on the nature of the fish, to show that it must 
 be so; but they were declared to be unsatisfactory. Being 
 asked for the solution of the phenomenon, he gave them 
 this piece of advice : " Gentlemen, before giving reasons for 
 a fact be sure of the existence of the fact. I think the vessel 
 will run over." Before Dr. C. accounts so learnedly for fiaTzri^m 
 being used in a covered and bare figure dipping, it might be 
 well to inquire whether there is any such conception in the 
 word. I think that there is none. But even if there were 
 any such idea ever associated with this word, the altar is not 
 " lying under water," and therefore the application fails. But 
 we have another exposition of this "open sesame" principle 
 to which all obstacles to the theory must give way. 
 
 It is called upon in the case of l^ebuchadnezzar and the 
 
BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 333 
 
 dew. He says, " It will be of importance to settle the ques- 
 tion though it should occupy some pages." After " some 
 pages" we have this result: "Without doubt the verb ex- 
 presses, here, mode as well as anywhere else. . . . The Holy 
 Spirit by Daniel used the word signifying to immerse, when 
 speaking of the wetting of Nebuchadnezzar by the dew, to 
 enliven the style. . . . Wetting by the gentlest distillation 
 in nature, is here, in the liveliest and most imaginative 
 language, figured as an immersion." ..." Can any child 
 then be at a loss," &c. 
 
 Whether, in this application of the principle, this "lively 
 and imaginative language " extends to figuring the king as 
 " lying under water," when the dew was on him, and as 
 " bare " when the beams of the sun had dried up the moist- 
 ure, we are not told. And having "no soul for poetry," I 
 am not able to throw any light upon the matter. However, 
 we have "the principle often explained and illustrated," 
 which is to illuminate the Carmel baptism. We are by " a 
 lively imagination " to conceive of the altar as " lying under 
 water," while the water is poured, and "bare" when the 
 pouring stops. Then convert the action of pouring into the 
 action of dipping, and you have a lively and imaginative ex- 
 pression for an immersion. 
 
 Now, " can any child fail to understand" from this flowing 
 tide, falling dew, and pouring water, that ^^ ^aTZTiZm means to 
 dip, and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature ?" 
 
 So long as the appeal is made to children, (and this is quite 
 a favorite refrain with Dr. C.,) I have nothing to say. The 
 audience and the ratiocination seem to be very well adapted 
 to each other. 
 
 One remark, however, I may be permitted to make: — 
 When an object is said to be baptized, and the manner of 
 the baptism is not stated, Dr. C. will not listen to the sug- 
 gestion of any other mode of baptizing than by dipping. No 
 "principle," no "figure," no "beautiful play of the imagina- 
 tion " is tolerated. It is all plain, prose, dipping. If instead 
 of an altar " a couch " is to be baptized, no "flow of water," 
 no " gentle distillation," no " pouring " can have a hearing. 
 
334 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 The coucli mast be " lifted up by pulleys," or must be " taken 
 to pieces " by a bed-screw, and carried forth for a dipping. 
 If a man is to be baptized in a desert, no pouring, no dewy 
 sprinkling, must be mentioned. "The word shall find the 
 water and do the dipping." 
 
 Such statements fully justify us in saying; "If this Carmel 
 altar had been declared to be baptized, without the historical 
 statement of the mode, Dr. C. would have insisted, either 
 that there was a pool on the top of the mountain, into which 
 the altar was dipped, or that it was ' taken to pieces,' like 
 the couch, and carried down the mountain to the shore of 
 the sea, and dipped into the Mediterranean." 
 
 If objection should be raised that such a baptism would 
 be a heavy task for the prophet, the answer would be at 
 hand, "Where were the tribes of Israel?" Such "demon- 
 strations " of dipping, the Baptist world receives with exult- 
 ant joy, and laments that " it is not light that is most wanted, 
 but religious honesty," on the part of those that cannot see it. 
 
 Such extravagant interpretations ignore the laws of lan- 
 guage, modifying the meanings of words; conflict with Car- 
 son's own judgment, in assigning to the word "enlighten" 
 (Figurative Language, p. 278) a secondary meaning; and 
 condemns his own condemnation of Gale on the ground of 
 bad rhetoric. 
 
 "ii! is a drench, surround, steep-bapiism." — Fuller. 
 
 We pass on to Dr. Fuller's treatment of this baptism. 
 
 "Our opponents tell us that Origen says, of the wood and 
 sacrifice of Elijah's altar, that they were baptized. But as 
 we are inquiring into the meaning o^ ^a-KziZw at the time the 
 Saviour used it, and as Origen lived two hundred years after 
 this period, I have not thought it worth while to examine 
 this case. (!) Suflice it to say, that Origen's meaning is 
 plain. . . Origen was one of the most impassionate of men; 
 dealing in bold metaphors aud allegories; and who but sees 
 the force of his words? . . . What was the idea in Origen's 
 mind? It was an immersion. ... In the case of Elijah's 
 altar, the twelve barrels of water were first poured, and the 
 
BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 335 
 
 trenches all around filled, and it is the effect of this, it is the 
 thus being drenched, surrounded, and steeped, which Origen 
 figuratively calls a baptism." 
 
 Dr. Fuller is evidently preparing for some sad catastrophe, 
 as with funereal step he approaches Elijah's altar. His "two 
 hundred years after Christ;" "most impassionate of men;" 
 "allegories and metaphors;" "who but sees?" "I have not 
 thought it worth while to examine the case;" sound very 
 much like a requiem at the death and burial of the theory. 
 The denouement explains it all. He was invited to a bap- 
 tism by the great Grecian Instructor of the Alexandrian 
 school, and instead of taking him down a river's bank, he 
 conducts him up a mountain's side; and there he witnesses 
 the rite administered, not by " going down into the water 
 and coming uj)," not by " dipping or covering," but by the 
 simple outpouring of water. Now, it will not answer for the 
 Baptist to come to open war with the Greek, so he makes 
 the best terms possible, and very affably says : " Your mis- 
 use of terms is quite excusable; nay, highly rhetorical. Who 
 cannot see the impassioned poetry which converts the act of 
 dipping into 'a drenching, surrounding, and steeping effect?' " 
 
 To argue or expostulate with those who can originate or 
 accept such figures, is all in vain. Gale will still dip his 
 lake in the frog's blood, and the theorists will still dip Car- 
 mel's altar by "drenching, surrounding, and steeping." 
 We must be content, with the rest of the "enlightened but 
 dishonest" world, to believe that Origen meant just what 
 he said, and that the altar was baptized by pouring water 
 upon it. 
 
 I do not know whether we should most rejoice or regret, 
 that the theorists are tending steadily toward those regions 
 (abounding in light, but void of honesty) which we inhabit. 
 There is this comfort, however, we will try and keep our 
 "light," while they will bring "honesty" enough for us all. 
 Thus we can live with a fair fame and in goodly fellowship. 
 In the meantime we will mark the progress of Dr. Fuller, 
 as the representative man of the coming theorists. 
 
 1. He once wrote on this wise, making baptism centre in 
 
336 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 the performance of a definite act: "In commanding his dis- 
 ciples to be baptized, Jesus knew what act he enjoined, and 
 he could have been at no loss to express his meaning." 
 
 2. He eviscerates baptism, subsequently^, of all definite 
 act, thus: " It matters not how the baptism is effected." 
 
 3. He again stretches out his wand, and lo ! all act has 
 disappeared from the essence of the word, and it is turned 
 into a condition: "Suppose a man should lie in the baptistery 
 while it is filling by water poured into it. The pouring would 
 not be an immersion (baptism), yet an immersion (baptism) 
 would take place if he remained long enough." 
 
 4. And now condition, in turn, disappears, and effect takes 
 its place: "It is thee^ec^of this; it is the thus being drenched, 
 surrounded, and steeped, which Origen figuratively calls a 
 baptism." 
 
 But the marvel is, that having thus passed from definite 
 act to general act, and from general act to condition, and 
 from condition to effect, he should talk of an opponent after 
 this manner: "One of the latest and most prominent of our 
 opponents, drops altogether the act, and assures us that 
 /SflTTTfCw means " — an effect. ..." It is appalling to think 
 how many receive the sentiments of these authors, and quiet 
 themselves by their assertions. One consolation, however, is 
 left : it is plain from this last feeble attempt to defend " — an 
 efiect — "that the case is becoming desperate; that God is 
 causing error to culminate, and show itself on an eminence, 
 and thus be exposed before all." 
 
 Strongly said, for one who has brought baptism to the 
 issue of "effect," on this mountain top. Tlie "eminence" 
 to which God has brought the " error" of this theory, for its 
 culmination, is that same old Carmel where the " error" of 
 Baal's worshippers was exposed. There, at the feet of the 
 grand old prophet, (solitary but glorious and triumphant 
 defender of Jehovah and his truth,) do these good brethren, 
 " exposed before all," lay down their error, which afiarms 
 that the Lord Jesus Christ commanded " nothing but an act.^' 
 As surely as Baal was no God; so surely is " the theory" no 
 truth. 
 
BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 337 
 
 One more illustration of the treatment of this baptism, 
 and I will leave it. E. Ingham (Handbook on Christian 
 Baptism, London, octavo, pp. 620) says, (p. 530): "Origen, 
 who died A.D. 254, is quoted as saying, that ' Elias did not 
 baptize the wood upon the altar, but commanded the priests 
 to do that.' When our friends begin thus to baptize the 
 dear babes brought to them, to have a good work wrought 
 on them, we believe that ' the right of election ' will lead to 
 the choice of a single immersion as more convenient than 
 such a trine pouring as caused the water to run ' round 
 about the altar,' and 'filled the trench also with water.' 
 And we rather opine that such a practice would help in per- 
 ceiving that the baptism enjoined in God's word is nothing 
 else than immersion." 
 
 Well, I suppose that when good argument has ceased, and 
 bad rhetoric will no longer answer, we must take the best 
 jokes that can be got up. And if this joke about "the dear 
 babes," is the very best that "R. Ingham " can get ofi:*, we 
 must accept it, excusing its heaviness on the ground of a 
 naturally dolorous spirit, in view of the failure of the theory 
 under the experimenium erucis of Mount Carmel. 
 
 The theorists having been allowed to interpret this bap- 
 tism according to their' own conceptions, we find that their 
 methods for escape under difiEiculties are both various and 
 inconsistent. This we would expect from fundamental error 
 in the conception of the nature of a baptism. Error is mul- 
 tiform. Truth is uniform. iTot only are their interpreta- 
 tions discordant and disregardful of the principles of lan- 
 guage, but some of them, at least, bear internal evidence 
 that the passage in the original had never been examined. 
 
 ORIGEN. 
 
 We will, now, let the Patrists speak and expound this 
 baptism by their own language and principles. 
 
 1. The word ^amiZio as used by Origen in this case has 
 nothing to do with a "dipping" as claimed by Carson. 
 
 The conversion of the acts of " fiowing,' " falling," " pour- 
 
 22 
 
J38 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 ing," by figure, into the act of dipping, Dr. C.'s own friends 
 unite to repudiate. 
 
 It has nothing to do with " passion," " metaphor," "alle- 
 gory," "drenching," "surrounding," "steeping," (Fuller.) 
 
 Origen is making a cool, critical examination as to the 
 justness of Jewish opinion in relation to the administrators 
 of baptism, and grounds his argument, largely, on the lead- 
 ing feature of this baptism, viz., that it was not effected by 
 Elias personally. We do not look for passion, or metaphor, 
 or allegory, in a critical argument. The word has as little to 
 do with "drenching," "surrounding," and "steeping." The 
 logical and grammatical relation of the word is in an entirely 
 different direction. Its relation is with rd deoiieva Xourpou, " that 
 which needed cleansing." A newly built altar was required 
 to be "cleansed and purged" (Ezekiel 43 : 18-20). The ap- 
 pointed mode of cleansing was not adopted by the prophet; 
 nor does the Scripture say that he used the water for cleans- 
 ing; but our business is with Origen and his conceptions, 
 who uses the word. He believed, for he expressly declares, 
 that a " cleansing was necessary." Now it is, precisely, to 
 meet this exigency that Origen uses the word. With the 
 form employed to effect this cleansing /3a7rntw has nothing to 
 do either by intrinsic force or grammatical relation. This 
 conclusion, reached by the study of this particular passage, 
 is in harmony with all other writings of this Patrist. The 
 force of ^ar^riZui is expounded by -rd dediieva Xourpov, — " he did 
 
 not, himself, baptize (cleanse) that which needed cleansing." 
 2. Origen's use of the word has no more to do with 
 " twelve barrels of water " and their " soaking effect," than 
 it has to do with the act of pouring. 
 
 According to the phraseology there were three baptisms. 
 The priests were commanded, (according to Origen,) "to bap- 
 tize the altar by pouring four barrels, or pitchers, of water 
 upon it." This command they obeyed, and the altar was 
 baptized. They were commanded to baptize it a second time 
 and in the same way. This, also, they did, and the altar was 
 baptized p. second time. The command was repeated yet 
 again, and again it was obeyed, and the altar was baptized 
 
BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 339 
 
 a third time. This is the only just interpretation of the 
 language employed. And it is sustained by the well-known 
 Patristic trine baptism. If, then, this be a "soaking" bap- 
 tism, it must be made out of four pitchers of water poured 
 over a slain bullock, wood and stones. But such a baptism, 
 laid at the door of this learned Greek, is enough to wake 
 him from the dead to defend his fair fame. 
 
 3. Since " the twelve barrels" have been transformed into 
 "four pitchers," and one-fourth of one would have answered 
 just as well for Origen's baptism, (although not so well to 
 prove that the prophet had "put no fire under,") "the dear 
 children brought to have a good work wrought upon them" 
 need not feel bo very much alarmed. 
 
 BASIL MAGNUS. 
 
 The " efirect" which Dr. Fuller attributes to this baptism, — 
 "drenching and steeping," is not much like the effect at- 
 tributed to it by Basil. The one thinks it is called a baptism 
 because the altar becomes watersoaked; the other says it is 
 in fact a baptism, because it brings its own credentials in 
 "the power" to kindle a devouring fire. There is "power" 
 in baptism, (that is, in the water used in baptism mystically 
 poured thrice,) not to make very wet (!), but to burn up sac- 
 rifice and altar stones, or to burn up the sins of the soul. 
 Those who do not like Patristic theology are at full liberty 
 to reject it; but those who do not like their philology must 
 first show, that the Greeks did not understand Greek, before 
 they can be allowed to thrust a "drenching" into the place 
 of a -purification, or a "soaking" into the place of a burning. 
 
 GREGORY NAZIANZEN. 
 
 " Thj^ee overpourings." This language is used without 
 the slightest hesitation by Gregory, and in accordance with 
 all Patristic usage and sentiment, to denote baptism. 
 
 " With which I will luzlloiv the sacrifice." Again, we have 
 evidence that the Patrists attributed to water "a power" 
 not to make wet, but "to make holy" by "three pourings." 
 Water of baptism is, with them, an agency. 
 
840 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 " The POWER of the mystery." If anything has been estab- 
 lished by these multiplied examples of baptism which have 
 engaged our attention, it has been proved, that "the power 
 of the mystery" has nothing to do with the manner in 
 which the element (in which this "power" resides) is used. 
 Three overpourings irrespective of quantity, or, once walk- 
 ing through the dried Jordan, will equally well baptize. 
 
 They equally well baptize, not because of the action ia 
 pouring or walking; not because of the ejffect, wet or dry; 
 but because of a development of "the power" changing the 
 condition, either of the victim on the altar, making it hal- 
 lowed for God's acceptance in sacrifice, or of Elijah, making 
 him hallowed for God's fellowship in heaven. 
 
 AMBROSE. 
 
 Ambrose says, the water of baptism burns up sin, and, that 
 the baptism on Carmel, by which the sin offering was burned 
 up, was a type baptism. 
 
 He also likens the person about to be baptized by himself, 
 to the victim laid upon Carmel's altar, and declares that he 
 shall be "cleansed by water — qui ablueris aqua'' (the Latin 
 daguerreotype of Origen's statement — ra deofisva Xourpov) " and 
 his sins burned up." 
 
 It will, I think, be admitted by the theorists themselves, 
 that there is no little difference between their conceptions 
 of this baptism and that entertained by the Patrists; while 
 doubtless they will think — so much the worse for the Greeks. 
 For has it not been discovered in these latter days, that 
 ";?a7rr:Cw means dip and nothing but dip through all Greek 
 literature?" Something which Origen, and Basil, and Greg- 
 ory, and Ambrose never knew. 
 
 THE ERROR. 
 
 Baptist writers find themselves involved in inextricable 
 difficulties in the interpretation of this and kindred baptisms, 
 by reason, 1. Of a fundamental misconception of the mean- 
 ing of /SaTrntw, Supposing it to express action rather than to 
 make demand for condition. 2. From supposing that it has 
 
BAPTISM OF THE ALTAR. 341 
 
 no secondary meaning. They involve themselves in pre- 
 ciselj'- the same difficulties which they did so long as they 
 denied to ^dTzrui a secondary meaning. Then, when a berry 
 was pressed in the hand and the hand was said to be bapied 
 (dipped), of course, as there is but one meaning to the word, 
 it was necessary to make out a dip'ping. This must be done 
 in the Carson style by making one act (press) figure in the 
 place of another act (dip); or, in the Fuller method, making 
 the loeiness caused by the-juice of the berry to figure (by its 
 likeness in efiect) a dipping. So, the hand wet by blackberry- 
 juice is figuratively dipped into it, under the patronage of 
 " poetry " and " passion." By the assignment of a secondary 
 meaning to ^dnraj — (to dye), this swollen balloon filled with 
 poetry, passion, and figure, has been pricked, and has col- 
 lapsed into plain prose. All this, mutatis mutmuUs, applies 
 to their interpretation of /?aTT^Cw. They can never interpret 
 the usage of this word by the laws of language and common 
 sense, without a fundamental modification of their concep- 
 tion as to its meaning. 
 
 This baptism must be interpreted from a Patristic-Judaic 
 point of view. The altar and the sacrifice are Judaic ; the 
 interpretation of the water used as efi'ecting a baptism, is 
 Patristic. There is no baptism resultant from the ordinary 
 physical qualities of water. There is no act by which the 
 altar and victim are "put into and under water." There is 
 no act by which the water is brought upon the altar and 
 sacrifice "long enough" to cover it over. These are ad- 
 mitted facts. 
 
 To make out a baptism, where there is no baptism accord- 
 ing to their "axioms," the theorists resort, as we have seen, 
 to all sorts of devices. And the result is, that no one of their 
 writers seems to satisfy any other, and, indeed, not to satisfy 
 himself. And no wonder, for there is no satisfaction to be 
 found in the direction in which they are looking. One might 
 as well look toward the Southern Cross for the JSTorth Star. 
 
 This baptism is not one of primary physical baptism. It 
 is not one of intusposition simply, nor of intusposition with 
 or for influence ; but it is a baptism without intusposition — 
 
342 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 a change of condition effected through the influence of the 
 baptizing agency. The water is the baptizing agency. Ori- 
 gen, Basil, Gregory, and Ambrose, believed that there was 
 a "power ".in water " mystically poured thrice," to change 
 thoroughly the condition of the object to which it was ap- 
 plied. They believed that the condition of this slain bullock 
 was thoroughly changed ("purified," "hallowed," "made 
 meet for the Lord at his coming by fire") through the " mys- 
 tery " of the water poured upon it. Therefore they said it 
 was baptized. 
 
 In this use of the word there is the sternest adherence to 
 the principle regulating the word in Classic usage. 
 
 It is the natural, not mystical, "power" of water which 
 changes the condition, baptizes hot iron when poured over 
 it. It is the natural, not mystical, " power" of water which 
 changes the condition, baptizes wijie when poured into it. It 
 is the natural, not mystical, "power" of wine which changes 
 the condition, baptizes a man when it is poured into him. 
 But it is the mystical, and not natural, "power" of water 
 which changes the condition, baptizes the sacrifice upon the 
 altar. The baptism is Judaic in its character. It introduces 
 its object into a condition of ceremonial purification. 
 
 Could any interpretation meet more absolutely the de- 
 mauds of a case ? Could any interpretation be in more 
 absolute harmony with the laws of language? Could any 
 interpretation be more fully vindicated by Classic usage? 
 Could any interpretation be more crucially fatal to " the 
 theory ? " 
 
 "We, now, close the testimony of Grecian and Latin writers 
 in applying (ianri'^u} to the facts and ceremonials of Old Tes- 
 tament history. That testimony is given so abundantly, so 
 uniforml}', so explicitly, and so authoritatively, that few will, 
 henceforth, hold in much regard the theory which proclaims 
 " a dipping and nothing but a dipping, or at least a cover- 
 ing, through all Greek literature." 
 
APOCRYPHA. 
 
 (843) 
 
BAPTISM AND MIRACLE. 
 
 ALTAR BAPTIZED BY SPRINKLING. 
 
 II Maccabees 1 : 19-36. 
 
 "For when our fathers were led into Persia, the priests that 
 were then devout, took the fire of the altar privily, and hid it in 
 an hollow place of a pit without water, where they kept it sure, 
 so that the place was unknown to all men. 
 
 " Now after many years, when it pleased God, Neemias being 
 sent from the King of Persia, did send of the posterity of those 
 priests that had hid it, to the fire : but where they told us they 
 found no fire, but thick water; 
 
 " Then commanded he them to draw it up (ano (Sacpavraq-'), and 
 to bring it; and when the sacrifices were laid on, Neemias com- 
 manded the priests to sprinkle {tnt^pavai tu) udazt) with the water, 
 the wood and the things laid thereupon. 
 
 "When this was done, and the time came that the sun shone, 
 which afore was hid in the cloud, there was a great fire kindled, 
 so that every man marvelled. 
 
 . . . "Now when the sacrifice was consumed,. Neemias com- 
 manded the water that was left to be poured on the great 
 stones. 
 
 " When this was done, there was kindled a flame; but it was 
 consumed by the light that shined from the altar. 
 
 "So when this matter was known, it was told the King of 
 Persia, that in the place where the priests that were led away 
 had hid the fire, there appeared water, and that Neemias had 
 
 purified (fiyvtaav) the sacrifices therewith And Neemias 
 
 called this thing Naphthar, which is as much as to say a cleans- 
 ing (xaSaptff/J.6q)." 
 
 Interpretation. 
 "Superioris eventus ac potissimum oblati a Neemias sacrificii 
 narratione, Sanctum Spiritum, Christianorumque baptisma sig- 
 nificari ; 
 
 (345) 
 
346 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 '' Arbitror quod nee ignem istum possimus ignorare, cum le- 
 gerimus quia baptizat Dominus Jesus in Spiritu Sancto et igni. 
 
 " Quid ergo sibi vult esse quod ignis aqua factus est, et aqua 
 ignem excitavit ; nisi quia spiritalis gratia per ignem exurit, per 
 aquam mundat peccata nostra ? 
 
 . . . "Eiise quoque tempore descendit ignis, . . . hostiam suam 
 tertio ipse perfudit aqua, et manabat aqua in eircuitu altaris, et 
 exclamant, et cecidit ignis a Domino de ccelo, et consumpsit 
 holocaustum. 
 
 " Hostia ilia tu es." 
 
 " The narrative of the preceding event (see Levit. 9 : 24), and 
 especially of the sacrifice offered by Nehemiah, betokens the 
 Holy Spirit and the baptism of Christians. 
 
 "I think that we cannot be ignorant as to this fire, since 
 we learn that the Lord Jesus baptizes by the Holy Spirit and 
 fire. 
 
 " "What then means the fire was made water, and the water 
 kindling the fire, except that spiritual grace, by fire, burns, and 
 by watei', cleanses our sins ? 
 
 ..." Fire also in the time of Elias descended, ... he bathed 
 the victim with water thrice, and the water flowed around the 
 altar, and they cry out, and fire fell from the Lord out of heaven, 
 and consumed the burnt-offering. 
 
 " Thou art that victim." — Ambrose, iii, 174. 
 
 SPRINKLING BAPTISM. 
 
 It was stated in Classic Baptism (p. 846), "that a state of 
 complete purification induced by the sprinkling of Ibis water, 
 is as legitimate and true a baptism, interpreted by Classic 
 Greek, as would be a state of complete covering of the body 
 sunk to the bottom of the !N"ile." 
 
 " Sprinkling demands, not as of grace but as of absolute 
 right, the acknowledgment of its power to baptize." 
 
 This statement we re-affirm, after having largely consid- 
 ered Judaic and Patristic usage. Unnumbered examples 
 sustain the position. The case before us furnishes yet an- 
 other. It teaches us, immediately, through Ambrose, and 
 with the unanimous consent of every Classic, Jewish, and 
 Patristic writer, that a sprinkling which is capable of thor- 
 
ALTAR BAPTIZED BY SPRINKLING. 347 
 
 oughl}" changing the condition of its object, is capable of 
 baptizing that object. 
 
 Every sprinkling will not baptize; because a baptism does 
 not result from the mere act, or, from the sprinkling of any 
 and every fluid or substance. It is essential that the thing 
 sprinkling should have a controlling power over the condi- 
 tion of the object sprinkled, which power finds development 
 by such action. In all such cases I maintain, that a most 
 Greekly baptism (without any help from figure and without 
 favor from any quarter) is efiected. Thus ISTehemiah's altar 
 and sacrifice were baptized by water sprinkled upon them, 
 being purified through a special " virtue " belonging to the 
 fire-water. 
 
 "BAPTISM (immersion) BY SPRINKLING, ABSURD." 
 
 Dr. Conant (p. 99) quotes Alex, de Stourdza, Russian 
 State Councillor of the Greek Church, as saying: "It is an 
 abuse of words and of ideas, to practise baptism by aspersion, 
 this very term being, in itself, a derisive contradiction. The 
 verb ^anriZw^ immergo, has in fact but one sole acceptation. 
 It signifies, literally and always, to jplunge. Baptism and im- 
 mersion are, therefore, identical, and to say, baptism by asper- 
 sion, is as if one should say, immersion by aspersion, or any 
 other absurdity of the same nature." 
 
 As Dr. Conant declines to be bound by his own quoted 
 authority, as to the defining of ^oktIZu) " literally and always 
 to plunge,'^ and feels at liberty, or feels the necessity for nul- 
 lifying that "literally and always," by adding six other de- 
 fining words, showing that, in his judgment, his friend was 
 quite at fault in his definition; and as Booth thinks that 
 "plunge, literally and always," "would make our senti- 
 ments ridiculous," I do not know why we should be re- 
 quired to strait-jacket ourselves in the Stourdza opinion, as 
 to the absurdity of a baptism, or immersion, by aspersion. 
 
 The Greek Councillor forgot his Greek, when he said, 
 that there was any essential absurdity in the phrase, (to take 
 it in the strongest and baldest form in which the case can 
 be put,) '■'■immersion by sprinkling." 
 
348 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 The Septuagint says : " IN'ebucliadnezzar was dipped by 
 the falling dew-drops." — "Ah! yes,'"' replies the theorist, "it 
 does seem to be absurd to talk of dipping by dropping ; but it 
 is not so in fact. There is a lofty vein of poetry, and highly 
 wrought figure in such expressions, which not only imbue 
 it with all that is rational, but invest it with a sparkling, 
 rhetorical beaut}-." 
 
 Well, and what do you say of the Father of Medicine 
 speaking of "garments dipped by drops falling on them?" — 
 "In good sooth, the absurdity is, on the face of the statement, 
 the same; but we expound the absurdity out of it in another 
 way. We now lay aside poetry and figure (which we once 
 used in this case), and take the statement as literal. It might 
 be thought that, in doing so, we would certainly run against 
 'the absurdity.' But we do not. We turn a sharp corner, 
 by the help of a secondary meaning, and find this 'absurd' 
 phraseology to be most rational." 
 
 And how do you treat the same "absurdity" as uttered 
 by the Romans, e. g., "pastures dipped by dew-drops?'^ — "As 
 we have not yet agreed to allow the Latins a secondary 
 meaning for ' dip ' when used with pure water, we again fall 
 back on poetry, and are lost in admiration of the beautiful 
 figure by which the grassy plains, and hills, and valleys are, 
 by the giants of rhetoric, picked up and dipped. Thus the 
 absurd vanishes and the rational appears." 
 
 And is the elimination efiected in the same way when 
 Ovid speaks of " the body dipped by sprinkled water ? " — " iN'ot 
 exactly. We do not think it prudent to resort to these 
 highest flights of poetry and rhetoric except under pinching 
 necessit3^ We seek, then, first to change the word tingere 
 to iangere, but in case of failure we fall back on our reserved 
 poetry and figure, which takes away all ' absurdity.' " 
 
 And are English writers, who use the same absurd lan- 
 guage as do the Romans and the Greeks, converted into 
 sensible men by the same process ? What of Comus, whom 
 "dew-drops di2) all over?" — "We are highly favored in that 
 case. Spirits and nymphs abound. We have only to imagine 
 the dew to be some elfin sprite which picks up the Leader 
 
ALTAR BAPTIZED BY SPRINKLING. 349 
 
 of fun and 'dips him all over' in some convenient pool, 
 and all is rational. Some might suppose that it would be 
 better to get rid of the ' absurdity ' by allowing a secondary 
 meaning to dip {wet), but having once refused any secondary 
 meaning to the Greek 'dip,' and having been compelled to 
 give that up and to admit dye as a true meaning, it would 
 look too bad to have to concede, still farther, the meaning 
 to wet. In refusing this meaning to the Greek word, we 
 must do the same to the Latin, and the English word, and 
 rely solely upon poetry and rhetoric to help us out." 
 
 And what do you say of the "immersion by sprinkling" 
 of Triptolemus ? — " Oh ! Sir Walter Scott, you know, was 
 a poet. And although this statement is made in very plain 
 prose, yet the ' absurdity ' must be taken out of it by put- 
 ting into it a strong poetic afflatus. He was figuratively 
 dipped.' ' 
 
 It would seem, then, that this very " absurd" mode of ex- 
 pression has been very widely adopted by Greek, and Latin, 
 and English writers. And if we should choose to speak of a 
 dipping, or an immersion, by sprinkling, we shall use language 
 with just th& same "absurdity" as that with which it has 
 been used by the learned and the wise among all cultivated 
 nations for some thousands of years. — "Ah! but they used 
 dip and immerse with a modified meaning." 
 
 And can you not give us the benefit of a like license of 
 usage? — "l!To; for, then, we must abandon the theory — 'one 
 meaning, dip, plunge, sink, immerse, immerge, submerge, bathe, 
 whelm., overwhelm, &c., &c., through all Greek literature.' " 
 
 Well ; keep this very remarkable " one meaning," which 
 is so free from " absurdity;" but do spare us, in the interpre- 
 tation of our language, the sublimities of poetry or the pro- 
 fundities of rhetoric. We mean to speak in the most un- 
 adorned prose. And with our hand upon the garment which 
 Hippocrates " dips " by sprinkled coloring drops, we will 
 venture to defend the altar baptized by sprinkled napthar, 
 even though somebody should think it very "absurd" to 
 contradict their theory by talking like the classic Greeks and 
 Romans. 
 
350 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Najpthar = KaSapifffiot; 
 
 III the terra, "purification," applied by ISTehemiah to this 
 fire-water after he had purified the altar with it, we see how 
 words obtain wider extensions of meaning. 
 
 Purification, properly, denotes an efi"ect produced by some 
 agency. But, here, that term denotes the agency itself. 
 
 In ]3recisely the same manner, that which produces a con- 
 dition of cleansing (jSa-rcff/ia) takes its name from the con- 
 dition eifected. Thus Anastasius speaks of ivaier as "bap- 
 tism," because it effects a baptism. " Baptism is poured into 
 water-pots, and they are baptized by the baptism poured into 
 them." (Bibl. Patr., v, 958.) Baptism, here, cannot mean 
 immersion, because there is no immersion effected. That 
 which is employed to effect the thorough cleansing peculiar 
 to baptism, has obtained the name of the effect produced. 
 
 So, " two baptisms," water and blood, come from the 
 Saviour's side. 
 
 Napthar, loine, sanctified water, heifer ashes, were agencies 
 which, severally, had "power," "virtue," "force" to bap- 
 tize by sjmnkling and otherwise, Stourdza to, the contrary, 
 notwithstanding. 
 
 AMBROSE. 
 
 Ambrose says : " This baptism was especially significant 
 of Christian baptism." It is not Christian baptism, but it 
 is a baptism; and by reason of the agencies operating, and 
 the nature of the effect produced, it had a vividness of sig- 
 nificance beyond ordinary type baptisms. The sacrifice of 
 Abel's lamb was significant of the great atoning sacrifice 
 of Calvary ; but the sacrifice of Isaac, by his father, was a 
 far more significant t^^pe of the sacrifice of " the only be- 
 gotten Son of the Father." 
 
 The resemblance between the baptism of ITehemiah and 
 Christian baptism is expressly declared by Ambrose. It is 
 not found in any form of act done, nor in any resultant covered 
 condition. It consists in the use of fire and water, as agen- 
 cies, and in the purified condition consequent upon their 
 influence. " I think that we cannot be ignorant as to this 
 
ALTAR BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING. ' 351 
 
 fire, since we learn that the Lord Jesus baptizes by the Holy 
 Spirit and fire. What, then, means the fire made water, and 
 the water kindling the fire, except, that spiritual grace by 
 fire, burns, and by water, cleanses our sins." 
 
 This is Ambrose's own exposition; and how utterly it 
 ignores a dipping, I need not say. 
 
 COMMON FEATURE. 
 
 This is the last of those baptisms with which miracle is 
 (really or supposedly) associated. In glancing back over 
 them we see many diversities in them, and some points of 
 resemblance. Their common fitness to shadow forth the 
 baptism of Christianity cannot be in the things in which 
 theydifier; nor can it be in minor points in which they 
 agree. There must be some one, bold, outstanding point of 
 agreement by which they are fitted to fulfil the same duty. 
 There is one, and but one, such point of agreement. It is 
 found in a change of condition inducing purification. The 
 action in the baptisms is diverse without, in any case, ap- 
 proaching to the form of dipping. The mode of using the 
 water is diverse without any approach to a covering. The 
 point in which they agree, without exception as Patristically 
 interpreted, is the resultant condition of purification. 
 
 Ko one has studied Patristic baptism to any purpose who 
 has not learned, upon its very threshold, that purification 
 was its sine qua non feature. How they used the water is 
 not included in the present discussion. The business, in 
 hand, is to prove that the transactions passed in review were 
 called by them baptisms, and the ground on which they were 
 so designated. The evidence determining these points may 
 be found within the domain of Judaic baptisms, without 
 trespassing on that of Christian baptism. We claim that 
 they were called baptisms, because they exhibit a thorough 
 change of condition; and types of Christian baptism, because 
 the change was from impurity to purity. 
 
 This napthar baptism makes a clear path for Dr. Fuller 
 to make farther progress in the right direction. Having 
 abandoned modal dip for " immerse in any way," even by 
 
352 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 "pouring if continued long enough to cover;" and having 
 yielded up pouring long enough to cover, for "pouring long 
 enough to drench;" he may now drop the " drenching," and 
 chauge the pouring into sprinkling. 
 
 "We may, also, congratulate " R. Ingham" on the very 
 great relief which he must experience by the discovery, that 
 the " dear babes brought to have a good work wrought on 
 them" will not require "twelve barrels" of water to be 
 poured over them. A sprinkle will suffice. 
 
 BAPTISM BY SPEING WATER 
 
 CEREMONIAL PURIFICATION. 
 
 Judith 12 : 5-9. 
 
 " And the servants of Holofernes brought her into the tent, 
 and she slept until midnight; and she arose at the morning 
 watch. 
 
 "And she sent to Holofernes, saying, Let my lord, now, com- 
 mand that thy handmaid may go out for prayer. 
 
 "And Holofernes commanded his body-guard not to hinder 
 her; and she remained in the tent three days, and went out 
 nightly into the valley of Bethulia, and baptized herself in the 
 camp at the fountain of water. 
 
 " And as she went up, she besought of the Lord God of Israel 
 to direct her way to the raising up of the children of her people. 
 
 "And entering in pure, she remained in the tent." . . . 
 
 Sepiuagini. 
 
 Kal e^sTzopsusTO xara voy.ra elq rijv ydpayya BeTO/.oua, xai i^anzt^ero 
 £v rfj napsfxI^oXfj k-), r^? "^^Y^j^ '^ou udaro(;. 
 
 Kai wq dvi^rj, idiero too Kupioo 0eou ^lapaijX. . . . Kal elffnopeuofiivrj 
 xa6apd Tzapifievs rfj ffxrjvfj .... 
 
 What the Theory says. 
 
 CARSON. 
 
 " This ought here to have been translated she dipped her- 
 self. ... It is evident that though she was in a camp, she 
 was in such a part of it as affiDrded her the necessary seclu- 
 
BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 353 
 
 riion. . . . We neither imagine nor assume that Judith was 
 immersed in water. It is from the established meaning of 
 the word, not from views of independent probability, that 
 we must derive our knowledge of the fact. Even were the 
 fact improbable in itself, the testimony of the word would 
 establish it. ... I care not if there had not been a fountain 
 at all in Bethulia, she might have been immersed without 
 it. If from other places I prove that immerse is the mean- 
 ing of the word, this, in every situation, will provide the 
 water. We refuse, then, to be gauger of the fountain of 
 Bethulia; let them dip it who need the evidence. . . . 
 
 "I care not whether she was immersed in the fountain, or in 
 a cistern, or bath beside it. The historian understands that it 
 was in the fountain. The preposition, indeed, does not desig- 
 nate this, but it is often used when in might have been used. 
 That the historian meant that she was immersed in the foun- 
 tain, is plain from his speaking of her praying immediately 
 on ascending. ... It cannot be known, or rationally admitted, 
 that she was dipped, but on the testimony of this word. . . . 
 
 " Was it not usual to have stone troughs at fountains, for 
 the purpose of watering cattle ? . . The immersion is proved, 
 not by the preposition, but by the verb; and though at a foun- 
 tain does not signify in a fountain, yet it is consistent with it. 
 . . . Is it not evident, on the face of the document, that Ju- 
 dith went out from the camp to the fountain at Bethulia, for 
 the purpose of bathing, or washing her whole person ? . . . 
 Why did she go to the fountain ? Why did she leave the 
 tent ? Could not a small basin of water have served the 
 purpose of successive washing ? . . . 
 
 "All my opponents endeavor to take advantage of my 
 candor in proving the secondary meaning of /SaTrrw, taking it 
 for granted that this equally applies to ^ar.riZu). Let ^aizriZoi 
 show as good evidence of a secondary meaning, as I have 
 shown on the part of ^dmw^ and I will, without controversy, 
 admit the fact." 
 
 FULLER. 
 
 " She bathed in the fountain. She was, of course, dressed 
 in proper apparel. . . . As if to leave no doubt, however, as 
 
 23 
 
354 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 to her bathing, it is expressly said, that 'she came out of the 
 water.' The pretence, that bathing would have been indeli- 
 cate, is absurd," 
 
 CONANT. 
 
 "According to the common Greek text, this was done ^at 
 the fountain,' to which she went, because she had there the 
 means of immersing herself. Any other use of water, for 
 purification, could have been made in her tent. . . . There 
 was evidently no lack of water for the immersion of the 
 body, after the Jewish manner, namely, by walking into 
 the water to the proper depth, and then sinking down till 
 the whole body was immersed." 
 
 ARGUMENT OF THE THEORY. 
 
 Admissions. 
 
 It is admitted by the friends of the theory, that there are 
 no incidental circumstances connected with this baptism of 
 Judith, which show that a dipping did, in fact, take place. 
 
 One of the most marvellous things connected with this 
 cast-iron theorj-, is the utter failure to show, by incidental 
 facts, that a dipping or a covering of the body in water ever 
 took place. There is no such evidence to show, that in a 
 single instance, for fifteen hundred years, the body was dip- 
 ped into water in effecting a Jewish purification. 
 
 This marvel is only paralleled by that other marvel, to wit, 
 the courageous conflict with facts, which declare that no such 
 dipping took place, in the hope that some weapon in the ar- 
 mory of poetrj' or rhetoric maj- win a triumph for quasi dip- 
 ping. It is of no consequence whether the facts are, washing 
 at a tent-door in the sight of all Israel, pouring on a lofty 
 mountain summit, sprinkling a temple altar, or walking 
 across the dry channel of a river, the theorist, without the 
 winking of an eye, undertakes to roseerucianize these base 
 materials into dipping gold. 
 
 It is admitted that, in this case, no favor for dipping can 
 be got from the prepositions. These prepositions are ei<;, kv 
 and ext. The e:?, however, does not take down into the water, 
 
BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 355 
 
 < 
 
 but "into a valley." And although Dr. Carson says, going 
 into a valley will answer very well for an immersion (when 
 you cannot get anything better), still, he does not insist upon 
 it on this occasion. We have also ^v in connection with 
 fianu^u) — hl3a7tTi^£T(ju kv baptized in — yet tPiis is not here in- 
 sisted upon as pointing out a dipping, aud indicating the 
 element in which the dipping takes place, for the dipping 
 would, then, be not in the water but in the camp. Might it 
 not be worth while, here, to review the argument which de- 
 rives evidence for a dipping from ^i^ SaXdaarj and h vs^Urj? If 
 instrumental force be not allowed to the preposition, why go 
 beyond naked locality? The sea was dry, and the miracle- 
 cloud was just as dry. If an enclosure was made by the re- 
 mote water-walls, there was, perhaps, as lofty and certainly 
 a more closely investing enclosure of army tents, to say 
 nothing of the valley-walls. Indeed, we are only saved 
 from having these army tents and deep valley sides flung in 
 our faces as charming elements of a poetical dipping, by the 
 fortunate presence of "a fountain." 
 
 A baptism "in the camp " is felt to be not the most favor- 
 able position for dipping the entire person of Judith. There- 
 fore Carson says: "It is evident, that though she was in a 
 camp, she was in such a part of it as afforded her the neces- 
 sary seclusion." Where the "evidence for seclusion " is, I 
 do not know. It is in evidence that these fountains of Be- 
 thulia were captured; and the great hope for capturing the 
 city was in holding securely the fountains whence the sup- 
 ply of water for the inhabitants was derived. It is in evi- 
 dence that Holofernes, after he "took th-e fountains of their 
 waters, set garrisons of men of war over them." (7 : 7.) And 
 it is in evidence, that the camp was just as close unto, or as 
 deeply in, this fountain, as was the baptism of Judith. The 
 very identical terms which bring her baptism into relation 
 with the fountain, are employed to denote the relation of the 
 camp to the fountain. " They encamped in the vallej^ near 
 Bethulia, at the fountain — l-^). ri^? ttj^^^c." What now becomes 
 of the, "It is evident, that though she was in the camp, she 
 was in such a part of it as afforded her the necessary seclu- 
 
356 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 sion ?" It is wortli just as much as ninety-nine parts out of 
 a hundred of all the utterances of the theory, in attempting 
 to get rid of facts, and to thrust in a dipping into Jewish 
 purifications. That is, it is worth just nothing at all. 
 
 But Dr. Carson is not satisfied with the repudiation of 
 these facts, in or^ler to secure a secluded place within the 
 camp. He takes the lady "out of the camp" entirely. "Is 
 it not evident that Judith went out from the camjp to the foun- 
 tain of Bethulia, for the purpose of bathing or washing her 
 whole person?" (p. 459.) Why, yes; it is just as evident 
 that Judith "went out of the camp," in going to that point 
 which was specially garrisoned, as that the millions of Israel 
 were ^^ dipped in the sea," or that the sea-coast was ^^ dipped 
 in the tide," or that the altar on Carmel was '^dipped in the 
 on-poured water." Yes, just as " evident!" 
 
 If Judith had " gone out of the camp " from the tent of 
 Holofernes, she would have had a long night-walk. The 
 army and its followers made up about a quarter of a million 
 men. " And they camped in the valley, near unto Bethulia, 
 by the fountain, and they spread themselves in breadth over 
 Dothaim, even to Belmaim, and in length from Bethulia 
 unto Cyamon, which is over against Esdrselon. And the 
 children of Israel said, 'Kow will these men lick up the face 
 of the earth; for neither the high mountains, nor the val- 
 leys, nor the hills, are able to bear their weight.' " (7 : 3, 4.) 
 We dismiss, then, this — " it is evident " that she was in a 
 secluded place, and out of the camp, and could therefore with- 
 out embarrassment engage in " bathing or washing her whole 
 person." Does " out of the camp" translate ^v Traps/iftoXi}? 
 
 Dr. Fuller does not take this heroine out of the camp, n.or 
 is he very solicitous for a secluded place, seeing that "she 
 was, of course, dressed in proper apparel." 
 
 This "of course," of Dr. Fuller, wakes up as quiet a smile 
 as the " it is evident," of Dr. Carson. Why " of course," Doc- 
 tor? Are spectators from "the garrison" admitted to this 
 baptism ? And of what did this " proper apparel " consist ?^ 
 Was an orthodox "bathing robe" provided for these nightly 
 dippings? When did the enrobement take place, before 
 
BAPTISM BY SPRING "WATER. 357 
 
 leaving the tent, or at the fountain? When did the disrobe- 
 ment take place, after going back to the tent, or on coming 
 out of the dipping? Would not the putting on and off this 
 "proper apparel" require as much seclusion as the use of 
 none at all ? The " of course she was dressed in proper ap- 
 parel" does not help much "the washing of her entire per- 
 son in the camp." This "in the camp" is a thorn in the 
 side of the theory. 
 
 It is admitted, that the preposition ^n) has neither aid nor 
 comfort for the theory. Still, this is but a gnat compared 
 with the camels which the theory has become familiar with 
 swallowing. And, after all, it is about as good as if it were 
 iv, for " the historian understands that it was in the fountain." 
 It is a little odd, to be sure, that Dr. Carson should know 
 that the historian understands one thing, when he says quite 
 a different thing. But, I suppose, the same figure of speech 
 which converts one act into some other act, will suffice to 
 convert an historical statement into a very different concep- 
 tion in the mind of the historian. It is freely admitted by 
 Carson that "a^ afouMain does not signify in a fountain;^' yet 
 Dr. Fuller very dogmatically affirms (p. 39), "she bathed in 
 a fountain." Perhaps he thought that the discovery made 
 by his friend ought to be made use of. And it was very 
 natural for him to conclude, that "in the fountain" would 
 be of more practical value if incorporated in the text, than 
 by remaining "in the understanding of the historian," since 
 few persons would have the wit to find it in the latter place, 
 unless they were deep in the mysteries of the theor^^ Thus 
 we have the amended text — "she bathed in a fountain." 
 This ^:r^ is an annoyance. The camp was pitched — i-\ tT^<; T^r^yv^q 
 — "at the fountain," and every one is willing for them to 
 remain outside of the fountain. Judith was baptized—^-} 
 rrj<; -y]y%(; — "at the fountain," and the theorists insist that she 
 must be put inside of the fountain. 
 
 It is admitted that the dimensions of this fountain are un- 
 known. Yet every theorist seems ready to declare, if needs 
 be, under oath, that it was large enough for Judith to go 
 into it and "immerse her entire person." As this point, in 
 
358 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 which alone he feels any interest, is fully settled to Dr. Car- 
 son's satisfaction, he refuses "to be the gauger of it," and 
 bids those "dip it" who care to do so. 
 
 Dr. Conant knows why she went to the fountain, although 
 the narrative is silent on the subject. 
 
 "She went because she had, there, the means of immers- 
 ing herself." He says, that he knows this because he knows 
 something else, touching which the narrative gives no infor- 
 mation to any one else — "any other use of water for purifi- 
 cation, could have been made in her tent." Does Dr. Conant 
 know, that water for immersion could not have been used in 
 her tent ? And is Dr. Conant quite sure that Judith believed 
 with him, that water " for purification " (furnished by unclean 
 heathen men in unclean vessels) could have been used in 
 her tent in any form, with propriety ? Why did she refuse 
 to share in the meat and drink brought from the table of 
 Holofernes? "And Judith said, I will not eat thereof, lest 
 there be an offence; but provision shall be made for me of 
 the things that I have brought." ISTow, if this Jewess could 
 not partake of the food from Holofernes' own table because 
 it was " unclean," is it well considered in Dr. Conant to say, 
 "any other use of water for purification could have been 
 made in her tent?" How could she use in a religious rite the 
 water furnished by heathen, when she could not use their 
 food for an ordinary meal ? Without caring to say, that I 
 have special knowledge on this point, may I not ask — If this 
 is common sense, what becomes of the exclusive knowledge, 
 that she went to the fountain for the purpose of immersing 
 herself? Why not /or water free from heathenish pollution f 
 
 But Dr. Carson knows that she dipped herself, and Dr. 
 Fuller knows that she bathed herself, and Dr. Conant knows 
 that she immersed herself, — where ? Why, in the fountain 
 from which the Bethulians got their drinking-water, and 
 from which " the garrison " guarding that fountain, got their 
 water. Well, this is certainly a little remarkable, that a lady 
 should go and "wash her entire person" in a drinking foun- 
 tain ! However, these learned men say, that they know that 
 she did it. We must, then, set down this lady Judith as re- 
 
BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 359 
 
 markably solicitous for her own "purification," and remark- 
 ably regardless of the purification of the waters for those 
 who drank after her nightly washings ! 
 
 But there is another item of assured knowledge furnished 
 us by Dr. Fuller — "As if to leave no doubt, however, as to 
 her bathing, it is expressly said that she 'came out' of the 
 water." 
 
 ]5To wonder dippings, and bathings, and immersings, are 
 furnished to order, when they are accepted on authority like 
 this. 
 
 By whom is it "expressly said that she came out of the 
 water?" Why really by no one. For it takes two to make 
 up this statement. First, the English translator, who is 
 responsible for the "come out," and second. Dr. Fuller, 
 who is responsible for the addendum " of the water." Then 
 it should read — " It is expressly said by the English trans- 
 lator, and hy me, that she came out of the water." Is it not 
 amusing to hear a conclusion builded on such a foundation, 
 which is to relieve the subject of all doubt ? No one knows 
 better than Dr. Fuller that the translation of dve/% by " come 
 out " is without the shadow^ of authority. And when Dr. 
 F. adds — "it is expressly said that she came out of the water," 
 no one knows better than he, that neither in the English 
 translation, nor in the Greek original, is there any such 
 "express" statement. And this is Dr. Fuller's "best card," 
 which is to leave " no doubt as to her bathing ! " 
 
 What shall be said of such a statement? Why, we must 
 say, that it is pure fiction, and will sadly mislead every one 
 who trusts in it. And what shall be said of Dr. F. ? Why, 
 that he is just as honest and true as any other thoroughly 
 mistaken Christian man. He will promptly acknowledge 
 his error when his attention is called to it, and, doubtless, 
 will say — " My statement was made incautiously and erro- 
 neously. I should have said. It is expressly stated — 'and 
 when she went up,' " — and to this should have been added, 
 '■^ I do most eonfidently believe, that this refers to her 'going up 
 out of the water.'" Had it been "expressly" said, "she 
 came out of the water," it would have mattered very little 
 
360 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 what Dr. F., or I, might have believed as to the matter; but 
 in the absence of any sach statement, I have as much right 
 to "believe confidently" that no such fact ever took place, 
 as he to believe the contrary. And if I can give better 
 reasons for my faith, then my confidence is better justified. 
 
 As to these reasons let me appeal to facts. 1. Judith went 
 out, of her tent, into the valiej^ of Bethulia. She could not 
 go into a valley, without going down from a higher to a 
 lower position. 2. This descent brought her " by the foun- 
 tain" where she baptized herself. 3. After her baptism she 
 went up out of the valley to her tent. 4. She entered into 
 her tent. These are the facts as to the movements of this 
 Jewish lady. I cannot say, that it is expressly stated that 
 she did not " come out of the water," for there is not a sylla- 
 ble said as to her going in or coming out. Bat I can say, 
 that the word relied upon to prove such movement has other 
 duty to perform. It is in proof that Judith went down into 
 the valley ; and it is in proof that she went up out of the valley. 
 We need avif^-ri to effect a movement the existence of which 
 is in proof. If any other movement is introduced into the 
 case, through exigencies of the theory, words must be found 
 outside of the history to meet the new demand. 
 
 To enforce this interdict against pressing avi[iTj into this 
 water service, I would refer to Genesis 24 : 15, 16, — " And 
 behold Rebecca went out {i^triopiuero) and went down (j-ara- 
 ^aaa) by the fountain (^-£ r^v T.-qy^^^), and filled her water-pot, 
 and went up {dvifirf).'^ All the leading words in this refer- 
 ence are identical with those in the passage under consider- 
 ation. The preposition indicating the proximity of Judith 
 and Rebecca is precisely the same. The verb which ex- 
 presses the movement of these females, after their respective 
 missions to the fountain were accomplished, is the same. If 
 that word did not bring Rebecca " out of tl)e water," how 
 will it bring Judith? If that word carried Rebecca up out 
 of the lower ground of the fountain, why shall it not do the 
 same kind oflace for her sister Jewess? 
 
 I would, also, refer to chap. 7 : 8, 12, 17, 18, of the same 
 book, in which this baptism is related. We, there, find the 
 
BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 361 
 
 record of a transaction in connection with this same foun- 
 tain. It is proposed to take possession " of the fountain of 
 water which flows from the foot of the mountain." In the 
 execution of this project "thej pitched their camp in the 
 valley, and took the waters, and the fountains of the waters 
 of the children of Israel." Having effected this object, " the 
 children of Esau went up — d.vi^-qaav — and encamped in the 
 hill country." I presume no one will contend that these 
 sons of Esau went up out of the water to reach the hill coun- 
 try. And very few, I presume, will care to say, — "It is 
 expressly stated that Judith came out of the water,'' and, thus, 
 prove her bathing beyond doubt. The assumptions of the 
 friends of the theory are very abundant; their facts are very 
 deficient. 
 
 "J.^ the Fountain.'^ 
 
 It is insisted upon, that going to a fountain for baptism 
 necessarily carries with it a dipping of the person into the 
 waters of the fountain. 
 
 "Why did she go to the fountain? That she was im- 
 mersed in the fountain is plain." (^Carson.) " She bathed in 
 the fountain." [Fuller.) " She went because she had there 
 the means of immersing herself." [Conant.) 
 
 Let us test this assertion, also, to see whether it be any- 
 thing more than an assumption. 
 
 In Classic Baptism (p. 330) we have the account of a per- 
 son who was baptized at a fountain without being dipped, 
 bathed, or immersed in its waters. He neither "went into 
 it" nor "came out of it." Had he gone into it, and dipped, 
 or bathed, or immersed himself in its waters, he would not 
 have been baptized by it. 
 
 Baptism, at this fountain, was effected, not by dipping into 
 it, but by drinking of it. Thus, "the virtue" of this fountain 
 was developed. Silenus, the special friend of Bacchus, " took 
 possession of" the drinker. Brought under his controlling 
 influence, the condition of the drinker is thoroughly changed. 
 He is baptized by the Silenic fount, and resembles one who 
 is made "heavy-headed and baptized" by Bacchus. These 
 
362 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 baptisms of Sileniis and of Bacchus " resemble " each other 
 as closely in their mode and nature, as do the "jolly god" 
 and his " tipsy follower " resemble each other in character. 
 The one baptizes at the banquetting-table, the other at the 
 fountain. But whether at the festive board or at the bub- 
 bling spring, the baptism is effected by drinking. A man 
 dipped into a wine cask does not receive the baptism of 
 Bacchus. A man dipped into this fabled fountain does not 
 receive the baptism of Silenus. These drunken deities do 
 not, after such mode, "take possession" of their votaries. 
 We have here the most absolute proof of a baptism " at a 
 fountain," without any dipping, bathing, or immersing in 
 the fountain. Thus we estop the reasoning which makes at a 
 fountain equivalent to in a fountain. Thus, also, we arrest 
 the reasoning which makes a /oM?itom-baptism necessarily a 
 dipping-h ap ti s m . 
 
 To this it may be replied : " Although a fountain appears 
 in each of these baptisms, still, the cases are not parallel. 
 The fountain of Silenus was imbued with a peculiar quality, 
 the controlling influence of which was developed only by 
 drinking; but the fountain of Bethulia had no such quality, 
 and therefore a baptism at this fountain must be by dipping 
 into its waters." Truth and error mingle together in this 
 objection. It is true that this fountain of Classic story did 
 possess a peculiar quality which could not be developed by 
 dipping, (and therefore disproves the theory — " no dipping 
 no baptism,") but was developed by drinking. It is also 
 true that the fountain of Bethulia had no such quality as the 
 fountain of Silenus. And it is farther true, that we cannot 
 ■reason conclusively from baptism by drinking at one foun- 
 tain, to baptism by drinking at another fountain. For every 
 fountain may not yield up its virtue through the same chan- 
 nel. But it is error to conclude because the fountain of 
 Bethulia is not imbued with the same " virtue " as that of 
 the fountain of Silenus, therefore it is not imbued with any 
 " virtue " at all. It is also error to conclude, because the 
 "virtue " of this fountain is not developed by drinking, there- 
 fore it must be developed by dipping. 
 
BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 363 
 
 The "virtue" which belonged to this fountain in the val- 
 ley, was a specially purifying quality. The Jews were taught 
 to regard living water, running water, spring water, as hav- 
 ing a purifying power above standing or dead water. The 
 use of ^' living water " was especially enjoined in their ritual 
 purification. '(Levit. 13:50-52; mimb. 19:17, &c.) 
 
 Josephus designates this "living water," of the Hebrew 
 and the Septuagint, by the saiiie word which is used in the 
 passage before us — t^? td^^j^? — spring water. {Ant. ,Tud., iv, 4.) 
 
 While, therefore, this fountain had no intoxicating quality, 
 it had, in the estimation of all Jews, and especially of this 
 very religious lady, an em.mQni\j jpurifying quality. It was 
 to secure the purifying quality of this spring water that 
 Judith " went down into the valley to the fountain." If the 
 old man, at the fountain of Silenus, was baptized by drink- 
 ing its waters, (their " virtue " thus taking possession of him, 
 and thoroughly changing his condition,) then, the youthful 
 Jewess was baptized at the fountain of Bethulia, by using 
 its waters in any such way as would develop their "virtue" 
 so as to " take possession " of her, thoroughly changing her 
 condition. And this is as certain as the mathematical axiom, 
 "things that are equal to the same thing, are equal to each 
 other." Saratoga Springs yield their " virtue" to drinking. 
 
 Thus Classic baptism utterly repudiates the assumption, 
 that because a baptism took place " at a fountain," there 
 must have been a dipping in the fountain. 
 
 But Dr. Carson will not confide the cause of dipping in 
 the fountain to such unfriendly auspices as iin T^<r r^yjyrjq. " I 
 care not whether she was immersed in the fountain, or in a 
 cistern or bath beside it. . . Was it not usual to have stone 
 troughs at fountains for the purpose of watering cattle ?" 
 
 Alas! is the theory so merciless, that, rather than spare 
 this Jewish lady a dipping, they will make her lie down in 
 " a trough for watering cattle ?" 
 
 It is hard to tell which to admire most, "the washing of 
 her entire person" in the fountain of which others were to 
 drink, or the purifying of herself '■'■at the fountain" in a 
 horse-trough! 
 
364 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 SHE BAPTIZED HERSELF. 
 
 But the apology for all this extravagance, is " the word," 
 *■'' the wordV 
 
 "It cannot be known, or rationally admitted, that she was 
 dipped, but on the testimony of this word. The immersion 
 is proved, not by the preposition, but by the verb." She 
 was baptized. And ^a-.ri'^u} means dip, and nothing but dip, 
 through all Greek literature. 
 
 As the friends of the theory confess that a dipping cannot 
 be got out of this transaction, except through the naked 
 word /Sa-rttt", it becomes a necessity to follow them into this 
 last retreat. 
 
 In their conclusion, that the phrase — "she baptized her- 
 self in the camp at the fountain of water " — can give them 
 no help except it be found "in the word," I think all will 
 agree. 
 
 The hope to secure a dipping, through " the word," will 
 be found, by bitter experience, " to feed on ashes." 
 
 Meaning Obscure to the Theory. 
 
 It is obvious, that when three different meanings are as- 
 signed to a word by three intelligent men, each affirming 
 that the v/ord has but one meaning, the meaning of that 
 word is, probably, but obscurely apprehended by any of 
 them. 
 
 Drs. Carson, Fuller, and Conant, all declare that jSa-ril^uj 
 has but one meaning. Each one claims to know, as well as 
 he knows his own name, what that meaning is; and each, 
 writing with declared critical accuracy of the same transac- 
 tion in which that word appears, gives to it a different 
 meaning. 
 
 One (Carson) says, it means to dip; which meaning it never 
 has. Another (Fuller) says, it means to bathe; which mean- 
 ing it never has. A third (Conant) says, it means to im- 
 merse; which meaning (carrying with it the idea of limita- 
 tion of time) it never has. There must be some radical de- 
 
BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 365 
 
 feet, when critical scholars, starting from the same premises, 
 cannot walk together in the same path; but one turns off to 
 the right hand, another to the left hand, and a third thinks — 
 in medio tuiissime ibis. 
 
 It is not pertinent but trifling with their readers to say, that 
 although none of these words expresses the meaning of the 
 original word, yet that meaning underlies all these words; 
 and we know very well what it is, and it is very easy to state 
 it, and our object in writing elaborate treatises is to translate 
 it, and to tell all about it; yet we will not say what it is, but 
 we will state a dozen words which it is not, and out of them 
 you may find the meaning as well as you can. "We should 
 be chided "with bated breath," if we fail to find out the 
 meaning, seeing that, of these scholars, one says: "I have 
 found it, it is dip." And a second cries, "I have found it, 
 it is bathe." And a third responds, "You must be mistaken, 
 I have found it, it is immerse." Is there no fourth to arise, 
 (like the umpire in the chameleon dispute,) who shall say, 
 " Good friends, you all are wrong; I have found it, and have 
 it here, and if, when brought forth, you do not find it •plunge^ 
 I will eat it !" Yes, Stourdza will do this. 
 
 Condition, not Act, Expressed. 
 
 In the phraseology, " she baptized herself," there is no 
 form of act expressed; and all the theorists on earth might 
 spend a lifetime in guessing, and they could no more deter- 
 mine the question as to the act performed, than they could 
 tell, by like guessing, what kind of a spade Adam used, or 
 what kind of a spinning-wheel Eve employed, in those days 
 when "Adam delved and Eve span." 
 
 Let me state other cases of baptism expressed by similar 
 phraseology: " Seeing him baptized." " I am one of those 
 yesterday baptized." " Whom having baptized." "Whom 
 it were better to baptize." 
 
 In all of these cases ^amif^cj is used absolutely, as here ex- 
 pressed. If the word is capable of expounding itself, and 
 making known, in the clearest and most definite manner, a 
 form of act, then there will be no difficulty for any one in- 
 
366 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 itiated into the mysteries of this word, to tell us what was 
 the one modal act performed in these several baptisms. If 
 the wealth of all the Indies were offered as the prize, it could 
 not be done. If Webster's last quarto should be taken, and 
 all the forms of act between A and Z were gone over, there 
 would be no approximation to the truth. For there is no 
 definite act expressed. 
 
 In the first case, the word expresses a condition of mental 
 bewilderment. The second case, expresses a condition of 
 drunkenness. The third, expresses a condition of drugged 
 stupor. The fourth, is the condition of drowning in the sea. 
 
 Such facts of usage show that the statement — "Judith 
 baptized herself" — might mean, she brought herself into a 
 condition of bewilderment — or drunkenness — or stupor — or 
 drowning. 
 
 What shall be thought, then, of the bold promise to find 
 out by this naked "word," a definite act done? 
 
 Is relief sought by assuming the position, that this is a 
 case of literal baptism, and such baptisms can only be by 
 one definite act ? 
 
 I answer, 1. It is nothing but naked assumption to pro- 
 nounce this a case of literal, physical baptism. To appeal 
 to the word, is to go back on a track which has just been 
 found to be barren of all friendly results. To call upon 
 "fountain" — "^tti" — ^'dvifirj" — is to call for reeds which have 
 already been broken and can yield no support. To appeal to 
 facts of usage in such cases, is to attempt to prove a propo- 
 sition by a result which is itself yet to be proved. Also, it 
 is an appeal to that which has no existence. There is no 
 evidence of Jewish ritual purification through all the period 
 of the law — fifteen hundred years — by dipping the entire per- 
 son in water. Judith sought purification; and it is nothing 
 but an absolute assumption to say, that this required her 
 person to be put under the water. 
 
 I answer, 2. It is not true, by the showing of the theorists, 
 that the covering of the entire person by water is necessary 
 to a physical baptism. It is declared that ]^oah was literally 
 and physically baptized in the ark; while it is admitted that 
 
BAPTISM BY SPEING WATER. 367 
 
 he was not covered by the water. It is affirmed that the 
 ■Israelites were literally and physically baptized at the Red 
 Sea; yet it is admitted that they were not covered by the 
 water. It is affirmed that Elijah's altar was physically bap- 
 tized; yet it is admitted that it was not covered by the water. 
 
 How does it happen, that under all these diversities there 
 is a most cast-iron certainty as to the manner of Judith's bap- 
 tism? Would not "the ^pouring of twelve barrels of water" 
 suffice ? 
 
 I answer, 3. A physical baptism is precluded because there 
 is no case of similar phraseology in physical baptisms, ex- 
 cept in such as involve destruction of life. Baptism always 
 expresses unlimited duration in its continuance. That dura- 
 tion never terminates by the force of "the word." This is 
 a vital, nay, the most vital, and universally present element 
 in all the usage of the word. To take it out of the word, 
 and make it express limitation of time, would be giving it 
 a secondary meaning with a vengeance. This idea of un- 
 limited continuance, (so far as the word is concerned,) ap- 
 pears in every case of secondary usage, and grows out of 
 that grand and essential characteristic of the primary use. 
 Therefore, 
 
 I answer, 4. This was a case belonging to secondary bap- 
 tism. Proof of this is found (1.) In the fact that spring water 
 can purify, ritually, without covering the body. The Classic 
 and the Jewish world, alike, are filled with exemplifications 
 of this statement. Sprinkling purifies, ritually, as com- 
 pletely as pouring, bathing, or any other use of water. 
 
 Because of this quality, (enabling it to change the condi- 
 tion of the person on whom it was sprinkled,) it was capable 
 by sprinkling, of baptizing. Any one who will deny this, 
 "kicks against the pricks" of all Greek literature. 
 
 (2.) Judith came to the fountain for purification. She 
 came to be baptized by the ritually purifying power of spring 
 water. That is to say, she came to have her present condi- 
 tion of ceremonial impurity changed to one of thorough 
 ceremonial purity. Does not this state the facts of the case 
 in the fullest and most definite manner ? Wow remember 
 
368 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 that when the phrase — "she came to be baptized by the 
 ritually purifying power of spring water," is abbreviated into 
 the phrase — "she came to be baptized" — the whole force of 
 the omitted words become merged in the one word " bap- 
 tized;" and that word by such addition, by the laws of lan- 
 guage, now expresses the idea of purification in its repre- 
 sentative character. 
 
 (3.) This change of condition, the baptism effected by the 
 spring water, was not evanescent. She went up from the 
 fountain purified. She prayed to God for imperilled Israel, 
 purified. She entered into her tent, purified. 
 
 Here is that vital and universally present feature of bap- 
 tism — a continuance of condition without any self-limitation 
 of that continuance. 
 
 There is no such feature in the dipping, or the covering 
 of "the theory;" and therefore it is an error. A dipping 
 into water neither is nor can be a baptism. 
 
 Israel "baptized into Moses" did not emerge from their 
 baptispQ for the space of forty years. Israel " baptized into 
 Joshua" did not emerge from their baptism during "all the 
 days of his life." Judith baptized into ceremonial purity at 
 the fountain of Bethulia, did not emerge from her baptism 
 until taken out of it by some defiling influence. 
 
 This is the teaching of the Classics. There is no limit 
 of time when the lost ship shall emerge from its baptism, 
 or when the drunken man, or the bewildered man, or the 
 opiately stupefied man shall emerge from his baptism. 
 
 ^ Secondary Meaning. 
 
 Dr. Carson makes this complaint : " All my opponents 
 endeavor to take advantage of my candor in proving the 
 secondary meaning of jSdnrw, taking it for granted that this 
 equally applies to [iaizriZui. Let l^anrH^o) show as good evidence 
 of a secondary meaning, as I have shown on the part of^dizTO}, 
 and I will without controversy admit the fact." 
 
 If this complaint is well grounded, Methuselah must have 
 been young in years compared with Dr. Carson. The proof 
 of a secondary meaning to /3arrw has been in existence for 
 
BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 369 
 
 some centuries beyond a thousand years. It only remained 
 for Dr. C.'s friends to profit by his " candor" in accepting 
 the meaning urged by his opponents. 
 
 As to the evidence of a secondary meaning io ^amiZo), (the 
 primary meaning being, the change of the condition of an 
 object by its intusposition within a closely investing medium 
 without limitation of time, the secondary meaning being, 
 the thorough change of condition, without limitation of time, 
 of an object by some controlling influence, without intuspo- 
 sition,) a limited portion of this evidence may be found in 
 the following facts : 
 
 1. The condition of heated iron is represented as changed 
 (baptized) into a condition of coldness hy water. Water is, 
 here, represented as an agency effecting this change of con- 
 dition by its quality of coldness. If it should be objected, 
 *' This change might be effected by the immersion of the 
 hot iron in cold water." I grant it; but reply, this is not 
 what is said. And demand in turn the admission, that the 
 quality of coldness in water is capable of controlling and 
 changing thoroughly the condition of hot iron without any 
 immersion. 
 
 2. It is said, that the condition of a sober man is changed 
 (baptized) into the condition of a drunken man by means of 
 wine-drinking. It cannot be objected, in this case, that the 
 same change of condition may be effected by the immersion 
 of a man in a hogshead of wine; for it is obviously and con- 
 fessedly untrue. Such an immersion would produce a bap- 
 tism, but as different from the other as light from dark- 
 ness, or as life from death. It is most irrational, therefore, 
 to say that these baptisms have any relation, in kind, to each 
 other. It follows, consequently, by necessity, that there is a 
 baptism in which no intusposition exists in fact or by imagi- 
 nation. 
 
 3. It is said, that a man who drinks of the fountain of 
 Silenus is like to a "baptized" man. But there is no con- 
 ceivable resemblance between such a one and an immersed 
 man. There is a resemblance to a drunken man. " Bap- 
 tized," therefore, is here employed to denote, directly, a 
 
 24 
 
370 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 drunken condition. The change of condition, in one case, 
 is likened to the change of condition, in the other case. In. 
 neither case is there any possibility of immersion. 
 Such proof of a secondary meaning is absolute. 
 
 4. It is said, that Bacchus is baptized by water poured into 
 wine. It is impossible that wine should be immersed by 
 water poured into it. For the same reason it is impossible 
 that the word, here, can mean " immersed." The condition 
 of wine is thoroughly changed by water poured into it, and 
 this condition, (without immersion,) is expressed by ^a-Kri^u). 
 It has, therefore, a secondary meaning. 
 
 5. Josephus says, a man ceremonially impure is baptized 
 by heifer-ashes sprinkled upon him. It is impossible that 
 he should be immersed by these ashe?. The word, there- 
 fore, cannot possibly mean, here, "immersed." But these 
 ashes do, by their purifying quality, thoroughly change the 
 condition of those upon whom they are sprinkled. They 
 are brought out of a condition of ceremonial impurity into 
 a condition of complete ceremonial purity. This change of 
 condition is expressed by ^arMZu); and being without intus- 
 position it has passed to a secondary meaning. 
 
 6. Origen says, the altar, with its sacrifice, was baptized 
 by water poured upon it. The altar and holocaust were not 
 immersed in water. The Greek word, therefore, does not, 
 here, mean " immersed." The condition of the altar and 
 sacrifice was thoroughly changed. They passed out of a 
 condition of ceremonial impurity into a condition of cere- 
 monial purity. This change of condition is expressed by 
 ^aTtriZoj; and being without iutusposition exhibits, again, its 
 secondary meaning. 
 
 These instances of usage representative of many others, 
 Classic, Jewish, and Patristic, prove a secondary meaning 
 for jSaTTTiZu}, as unanswerably as the " candor" of Dr. Carson 
 has succeeded in showing, to his unbelieving friends, to be- 
 long to iSdnroj. 
 
 The principle of development, in the two cases, is not 
 merely the same, but the form of development is almost 
 identical. 
 
BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 371 
 
 The Dbject of pdr.roj is dipped into fluids colorless or col- 
 ored. 
 
 In tlie former case the secondary meaning which would 
 result must be a state of wetness. This is exemplified in the 
 wet state of Nebuchadnezzar produced by the night-dew. 
 But to this secondary meaning the " candor" of Dr. C. did 
 not attain. But certain objects dipped into colored liquids 
 became, thereby, colored. Hence the word which caused the 
 coloring by its act of dipping, was applied to the coloring 
 of objects when the act of dipping was not present. Thus 
 arose the secondary meaning to dye, without dipping. 
 
 The object of ^arizi'^u) is brought into a condition of in- 
 tusposition within a fluid element, not by the transient act 
 of dipping, but by any competent act, and never removing 
 its object out of this new condition into which it has been 
 introduced. ..Some objects (rocks and other impenetrable 
 masses) are not affected by this change of condition. Other 
 objects, (human beings, penetrable and soluble substances,) 
 are powerfully affected, according to their nature, and the 
 characteristics of the investing element. From the effects 
 thus produced, by intusposition, on this class of objects, pro- 
 ceeds that secondary meaning of /3a-r£t">, which is expressive 
 of controlling influence, without intusposition as the indu- 
 cing cause. The word, out of whose demand the controlling 
 influence originally proceeded, is still retained to express 
 the condition resultant from influence when exerted under 
 modes of development other than that with which it was 
 originally associated. 
 
 If the friends of the theory seek to take the life of this 
 word in secondary development, hy the aid of monster beau- 
 ties in poesy and rhetoric, the answer is: The same troop of 
 " beauties " will as readily murder /?«7rrw, second, or any other 
 word that has passed to a secondary meaning. 
 
 What proves too much, proves nothing. 
 
 The condition of Judith was changed from that of cere- 
 monial impurity to one of ceremonial purity, by the influ- 
 ence of" living water;" and this change, without intusposi- 
 
372 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 tion, ^anriZw is competent, and is, in fact, used to express. 
 The circumstances and the phraseology of the statement 
 unite to declare that the word is so used here. 
 
 To enforce this conclusion against the dogmatic assertion 
 of Dr. Carson and friends, I will adduce an exemplification 
 of the unreliability of his judgment as to words, in attribut- 
 ing to them one unswerving meaning. 
 
 llepixXoZu). 
 
 There was a washing of Judith previous and preparatory 
 to her going to the camp of Holofernes. This washing is 
 expressed by the word -KepuXb^u). It is the same word used 
 to express the washing of Tobias at the river Tigris: " And 
 when the j^ouug man went down (to the river) {r^epuXbaaaSat') 
 to wash himself" (Tobit 6: 2.) 
 
 This passage having been quoted by President Beecher, 
 Dr. Carson thus comments (p. 445): "But Mr. B.'s criticism 
 on the Greek word xXb%u>^ here employed for washing, is en- 
 tirely false. He expounds the word as signifying a washing 
 all round, just as a man stands in a stream and throws the 
 water all over his body, and w^ashes himself by friction. 
 Mr. B. criticizes from imagination, not from a knowledge of 
 the language. Has he justified his criticism by a single ex- 
 ample ? He seems better acquainted with the different cir- 
 cumstances in the operation of bathing, than with the occur- 
 rences of the word on which he undertakes to criticize. The 
 simple word signifies to deluge, to overwhelm, to inundate, 
 to flow over anything, and is generally applied to water flow- 
 ing or rolling in a horizontal manner. . . . There is no fric- 
 tion nor hand washing in this word. It performs its purpose 
 by running over, either gently or with violence. 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. He was then baptized, indeed, and much more 
 than baptized." 
 
 This criticism is in the usual Carsonic style: supercilious 
 
BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 37-3 
 
 toward the utterances of others; self-complacent in his own, 
 as the embodiment of absolute truth. 
 
 In reply, Dr. Beecher refers, among other quotations, to 
 the washing of a child — vdan mpcxkuZeiv (Aristotle); and the 
 wetting by spray — d^pu) mpcxXu^^o/jievov. (Lucian.) Such pas- 
 sages do effectually take the underpinning from beneath the 
 claims of Dr. C. to critical accuracy. 
 
 No less so does this washing of Judith, related 10 : 2: 
 "She rose and went down " (not into the river or fountain, 
 but) "into the house, and washed her body all around with 
 water — TzepiexXuaaro to awp-a odari — and anointed herself with 
 precious ointment." 
 
 JN^ow, what becomes, in the presence of this statement, of 
 the dictum, that it is " entirely false " to expound the word 
 as meaning a "washing all around?" What is the worth 
 of the declaration, "the word signifies that he threw him- 
 self into the river, that the stream might flow over him ?" 
 Does this same word, also, signify that Judith, in her house, 
 " threw herself into the river, that the water might flow over 
 her?" Or, does the word " signify " that the water " deluged, 
 overwhelmed, inundated, flowed or rolled over her in a hori- 
 zontal manner ?" Does it " signify " that Judith was in the 
 water (85aT£, with water) at all? "Most assuredly; ignorance 
 itself should know that the word will supply the water." 
 Well, when the word cries out, under the tutorage of Dr. C, 
 for water to deluge and roll over the lady Judith, what is the 
 response from the Bethulians? Here it is: "All the vessels 
 of water fail all the inhabitants of Bethulia. And the cis- 
 terns are emptied; and we have not water to drink our fill 
 for one day; for we give drink by measure. Therefore our 
 young children are out of heart, and our women and young 
 men faint for thirst, and fall down in the streets of the city 
 and b}^ the passages of the gates, and there is no longer any 
 strength in them. And all the people assemble, both young 
 men and women and children, and cry with a loud voice, 
 and say, 'Deliver the whole city for a spoil to Holoferues 
 and to all his army. For it is better for us to be made a 
 spoil unto them, than to die for thirst.'" 
 
374 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 And, in the midst of this wailing from parched lips and 
 tongues cleaving to the roofs of their mouths, Dr. C. would 
 have us believe, that this Jewess "throws herself into a water- 
 bath, that .the water may flow horizontally over her!" 
 
 The Jew Apelles may believe this; the Bethulian Jew 
 will not. 
 
 Dr. Carson may " make ^oktI^u) find water in a desert," 
 but he cannot make T.^pi/lb^m find "a deluge, and an inunda- 
 tion, and an overwhelming, and a flowing over" of water in 
 Bethulia, whose people are dying of thirst. 
 
 Judith must be left quietly in her house, " to wash her 
 body all around with water," using so much as she may be 
 able to get, notwithstanding the faith of Carson should de- 
 clare all such action, under itzpuXu^m^ to be " entirely false." 
 
 WASHING FOR PRAYER. 
 
 This washing having been stained by the defilements of 
 the idolatrous camp, Judith goes to renew her purification 
 at the fountain of Bethulia. At her previous washing, in 
 her house, we are expressly told, that "she pulled off ihe. sack- 
 cloth which she had on, and put off the garments of her 
 widowhood, and washed, . . . and put on the garments of 
 gladness." 
 
 Here is the whole process of disrobing and enrobing. 
 Where is all this, or anything like this, at the theory dip- 
 ping, when "she baptized, in the camp, at the fountain?" 
 
 Homer makes Telemachus "wash his hands, of the hoary 
 sea, before prayer to Minerva." Hesiod inculcates " the 
 washing of hands, in pure water, before prayer." Ovid 
 teaches "the washing of hands, and the sprinkling of the 
 head with water, before prayer." The Jewish priesthood 
 washed their hands and feet before engaging in religious 
 worship. Aristeas says: "It is customary for all Jews to 
 wash their hands with sea-water, when they would pray to 
 God." Philo declares, "It is the custom of nearly all others 
 to sprinkle themselves for purification wnth pure water, many 
 with that of the sea, some with that of rivers, and some with 
 
BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 376 
 
 that which, in vessels, they have drawn up from wells." But 
 when this Jewish heroine comes to the running water to bap- 
 tize (purify) herself for prayer, she finds encamped there a 
 troop, under the bold leadership of "the theory," who de- 
 fend the passage, and refuse to recognize any permit from 
 Holofernes, or from " an angel from heaven," except the 
 shibboleth- — "no dipping no baptism" — be first accepted, 
 and the lady be pledged " to wash her entire person in the 
 fountain," (or, at her option, purify (?) herself in the horse- 
 trough,) the garrison of heathen soldiery being witnesses to 
 the faithful performance of the requirement ! 
 
 The theory is more pitiless than the Assyrian Holofernes. 
 
 - And, now, having gone through, in detail, the features of 
 this last case of baptism in the Apocryphal writings of the 
 Jews, it might be well asked, (if the theory were not full of 
 castles in the air,) Could anything be more foundationless 
 than the attempt to dip this fair Jewess, nightly, in the 
 camp, at a fountain surrounded by its special garrison of 
 soldiers ? 
 
 But, where interpretation is so generally phenomenal, any 
 new case ceases to awaken surprise. 
 
 The Apocryphal writers fully agree with the interpreters 
 of the Canonical Scriptures as to the usage of BAUTIZQ. 
 
NEW TESTAMENT. 
 
 ( 877 ) 
 
JEWISH BAPTISMS. 
 
 It was my purpose to have introduced, here, all the cases 
 of Judaic baptism mentioned in the New Testament; but 
 have concluded to defer those practised during John's min- 
 istry until his baptism shall be under consideration. 
 
 Paul interprets the Jewish ordinances, and calls them 
 "baptisms," just as do the Patrists, without the slightest re- 
 gard to any modal act of dipping into or covering over with 
 water, or anything else. 
 
 An illustration of this statement will now engage our at- 
 tention. And although more than a century has elapsed 
 since the record of Judith's baptism, we will find the usage 
 of the Greek word unchanged. 
 
 "YAEIOTJS KINDS OF BAPTIZINGS." 
 Hebrews 9 : 9, 10. 
 
 " Which was a figure for the time then present, in which were 
 offered both gifts and sacrifices, that could not make him that 
 did the service perfect as pertaining to the conscience j 
 
 "Which stood only in meats and drinks and diverse baptiz- 
 ings; carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of 
 reformation." 
 
 Movov in). ^p(6p.a(Ti xai Tio/xaffc, xai dia<p6poiq ^aTzzi(TiJ.olq, dixai(o/iara 
 aapxoz- 
 
 Diverse Baptisms. 
 After having examined the endless variety presented in 
 the baptisms passed in review we are well prepared to hear 
 the inspired Apostle speak of " various kinds of baptizings." 
 But such language must have a painful and ominous sound 
 to the ear of the theory. It compels it, once again, to as- 
 sume an apologetic attitude. We have been chidden for 
 speaking of the mode of baptizing. " To speak of the mode 
 
 ( 379 ) 
 
380 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 of baptizing was as absurd as to speak of the mode of dip- 
 ping. The word expressed mode and nothing but mode." 
 The theory, then, has the embarrassing task to explain how 
 it happens that Paul speaks of "diversity" in that which is 
 nothing but mode, and the most wonderful example of uni- 
 formity in mode which the history of language presents. I 
 do not say that the theory cannot show, that what the Apostle 
 says is diverse, and what it says is uniform,, agree perfectly 
 together. After having witnessed demonstrations that bap- 
 tism by pouring means baptism by dipping, I am quite pre- 
 pared to listen to another demonstration proving ih^iX diversity 
 is uniformity. 
 
 PATRISTS. 
 
 Diversity of baptisms was a truth quite familiar to Patristic 
 writers. 
 
 Hilary, i, 519, under the heading "Baptismata sunt di- 
 versa," speaks of the baptism of John, the second baptism 
 of the Saviour [alio baptismo baptizari), the baptism of the 
 Spirit, baptism of fire, of judgment, and the baptism of 
 martyrdom. These baptisms are all diverse in manner and 
 matter. 
 
 Ambrose, iii, 424: "Multa sunt genera baptismatum," 
 (1248,) " plurima baptismatum genera prsemissa sunt." 
 Among these *' many, very many kinds of baptisms," he 
 enumerates as "one kind, the healing of the leprosy of 
 IlTaaman ; another kind was the purging of the world by 
 the deluge; a third kind, when our fathers were baptized 
 in the lied Sea; a fourth kind, in the pool (Bethesda), 
 when the water was troubled; a fifth kind was the ascent 
 of the axe out of the water; and a sixth kind was the casting 
 wood into the fountain and the sweetening of the waters." 
 
 The diverse character of these baptisms is obvious at a 
 glance. 
 
 Basil, ii, 632, ed. Yen. : "John the Baptist says, I indeed 
 baptize you with water into repentance, but he shall baptize 
 you by the Holy Spirit, and many such things. But as much 
 as the Holy Spirit differs from water so much, evidently, also 
 
DIVERSE BAPTISMS, 381 
 
 he who baptizes by the Holy Spirit excels him who baptizes 
 with water, and the baptism itself." 
 
 The Apostle uses the same word to point out the differ- 
 ences among Jewish baptisms, as Basil uses to indicate the 
 difference between water baptism and baptism by the Holy 
 Spirit. The difference between these latter baptisms cannot 
 be a difference in the dipping or the covering; for in bap- 
 tism by the Spirit there is neither dipping nor covering. 
 Nor can it be a difference as to the objects baptized — "cups, 
 pots, skins" — for the objects are the same, human beings. 
 
 HI, 1532: "I think that we should learn, in brief, the 
 diversity between the baptism of Moses and that of John — 
 
 TTjv dta^opdv zou xazd Mwutria ^aKTi<T[xaToq Ttpoq zd zoo ^Iiodwou." It is 
 
 obvious that if a baptism begins and ends with a modal act 
 or covering, there can be no difference between such act or 
 coverinsr under the direction of Moses or of John. The ex- 
 position of these baptisms, therefore, cannot be found in any 
 such direction. 
 
 IV, 125 : "Why then compare baptisms which have noth- 
 ing in common but the name, while the difference of things — 
 ^ dk zwv Tzpayixdzwv diacpopd zoffai)Z7]—^is as great as between a dream 
 and the truth, or a shadow and the substance?" 
 
 How diverse was the view of Basil of baptism from that 
 of the theorists ! He declares that between Jewish and 
 Christian baptism there is nothing in common but a name; 
 while they labor, in ways most extravagant, to show the 
 most perfect uniformity. 
 
 Chrysosiom, ii, 366 : " John exhorted the Jews not to cher- 
 ish hopes of salvation through diverse baptisms and purifi- 
 cations of waters, — odx iv ^anztaiJ.oT'^ dtafopoiq xai xadapp-oiz 6ddzu)v" 
 
 The distinction made by Chrysostom between "diverse 
 baptisms" and "purifications of water" leads directly to the 
 conclusion, that among the diversities of baptisms there 
 were some not eflected by water. And this is true, for some 
 baptisms were by the sprinkling of blood, of heifer-ashes, &c. 
 
 Justin Martyr (Op. Sp.), 1340 : " The law released from 
 blame, daily, transgressors, by certain sprinklings, and sac- 
 rifices of animals, and diverse kinds of baptisms — b<.a<pupaiz 
 
382 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 ^anuff/idrcuv — but grace grants only one baptism." It is prob- 
 able that the writer intended to include the "sprinklings" 
 and "the sacrifices" among the diversities of baj)tism. This 
 is the understanding of Matthies (Baptismatis Expositio, p. 
 17): " Verum enim vero apud .Judaeos tota vocis," baptizare 
 seu baptismus " potestas istis purgandi ritibus continetur 
 iisque prorsus concluditur, ita ut qusevis lustrationes dici 
 possint baptismi — But truly among the Jews the whole 
 force of the word baptize or baptism is thoroughly expressed 
 by those rites of purification, so that any lustrations what- 
 ever may be called baptisms." 
 
 Gregory Nazianzen, ii, 353: "Come let us inquire some- 
 what concerning the differences of baptisms, — Ttspi 8ia<popaq 
 ^artzisixdrmv — that we may go hence purified. Moses baptized, 
 but with water, and previously with the cloud and sea. And 
 John baptized, but not Judaically, nor yet with water only, 
 but, also, into repentance; but not wholly spiritually, for he 
 does not add, 'with the Spirit.' And Jesus baptizes, but 
 with the Spirit. And this is perfect. ... I know a fourth 
 kind of baptism, that which is by martyrdom and blood, 
 with which Christ himself was baptized. And I know yet 
 a fifth, the baptism of tears, — washing — aovojv — nightly, his 
 bed with tears. . . . Perhaps, then, they will be baptized 
 with fire — rw itupi — harder to bear and longer in duration, 
 the final baptism." 
 
 If any value is to be attached to the judgnaent of these 
 Greek writers as to the meaning of Pa.7triZw, in such relations, 
 it is a point made out, that so far from a dipping or a water 
 covering constituting the alpha and the omega, neither of 
 these things entered into the conception of the word at all 
 in such use. Baptism was a conception myriad-sided, pre- 
 senting multiplied diversities as to nature, and no less mul- 
 tiplied diversities in the modes of accomplishment. Amid 
 these diversities there is this one element, which is always 
 to be found, — a thorough cha7}ge of condition. The nature of 
 the condition may vary endlessly, as may the cause inducing 
 it and the mode of its operation; but, still, condition as a 
 present element is a sine qua non. 
 
DIVERSE BAPTISMS. 383 
 
 The use of Aouw, by Gregory, reminds us of tlie statement by 
 Dr. Carson, that this word is limited in use to animal bodies, 
 and requires that its object shall be covered with water. 
 IvTeither of these features is present in the case related. The 
 "bed" is not an animal body, nor is the bed "washed" by 
 being "covered over" with tears. It is wholly insufficient 
 to talk about hyperbole. It is quite enough of extravagance 
 to imagine the bed to be superficially wet all over with tears. 
 To be asked to imagine the bed to be enveloped in a watery 
 covering of tears is insufierable. Nor does the literal use 
 of the word justify SbWj such extravagant figure. A baptism 
 is sought to be got out of every case of " washing." "Water 
 may be found to cover " the couches; " but tears will not be 
 found in the actual world, or in the world of imagination, to 
 immerse this bed. But it is no greater blunder to seek a 
 solution of this " tears baptism " in a hyperbolic immersion 
 of this bed, than to seek a solution of the "altar baptism" 
 in a hyperbolic immersion of the bullock, wood, and stones. 
 Dr. Fuller says, Origen, " one of the most impassionate of 
 men," figuratively calls the effect of pouring the water, a 
 baptism. 
 
 He defends the interpretation by quoting from Hamlet : 
 
 "What would he do, 
 Had he the motive and the cue for passion 
 That I have? He would drown the stage with tears." 
 
 "Whether Gregory was " one of the most impassionate of 
 men" I do not know; but if Dr. Fuller will take the altar 
 poured upon, the bed washed, and the penitent sinner sprin- 
 kled with tear-drops, as honestly baptized, we shall certainly 
 be making progress. 
 
 However, when an author writes a book entitled ^Hhe act 
 of baptism," and opens it with the portentous words, " Saved 
 or Damned," and then expounds a baptism in which "the 
 act " is left out, it reminds one of the adage associated with 
 the play which the Doctor has quoted: "Hamlet, with the 
 part of Hamlet left out." 
 
384 - JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 CLASSICS. 
 
 The Patrists, in their view of diverse baptisms, differ, in no 
 respect, from the Classics. They say that Mosaic, Johannic, 
 and Christian baptisms, are diverse, on the ground that the 
 agencies inducing them are of diverse " power," and there- 
 fore induce diverse conditions. The Classic writers teach 
 us precisely the same truth in connection with wine, opiates, 
 and cold water. The power of these agencies is diverse, and 
 they induce diverse conditions — baptisms. A condition of 
 intoxication, a condition of stupefaction, and a condition of 
 coldness, are all diverse conditions. And these diverse con- 
 ditions the Classics call baptisms, " diverse baptisms." 
 
 The manner of using these agencies to effect these bap- 
 tisms, was endlessly diverse; yet this fact is not singled out 
 for discussion or explanation, because it does not appear to 
 have entered into the mind of Classic or Patristic writers, as 
 needing either discussion or explanation. The only vital idea 
 in a baptism, is thorough change of condition. This was effected, 
 primarily, by intusposition within a closely investing medium. 
 The manner in which such intusposition was accomplished, 
 was a thing wholly extraneous. This change of condition was 
 effected, secondarily, without intusposition, by any agency 
 competent to the end. 
 
 And as every Classic and Patristic writer knew, that to 
 raise the question, how intusposition, primary, was effected, 
 was to raise a question wholly foreign to the case ; so, also, 
 they knew that there was no place for the quo modo of bap- 
 tism, secondary. Drinking wine, eaiing an opiate, 'pouring 
 cold water, sprinkling sacrificial bloo^, had the same equal 
 and absolute right to appear for duty on such occasions. 
 They, therefore, do not discuss any such diversities. They 
 are recognized and spoken of as accideuts, which are indif- 
 ferently present or absent. The word baptism has nothing 
 to do with modes of action. But baptism has to do, first 
 and last, with condition. And the conditions to which it is 
 applied are so diverse, and so alien from each other, that, as 
 Basil says, "they have nothing in common but the name." 
 
DIVERSE BAPTISMS. 385 
 
 These diverse baptisms (couditions effected by agencies 
 greatly diverse in their powers, and applied in modes un- 
 limited in their diversity) are largely discussed by Patristic 
 writers. 
 
 Judaic baptism belongs, exclusively, to baptisms of the 
 secondary class. It is causative, distinctively, of a condi- 
 tion of ceremonial purification. The diversities which enter 
 into it, are due to the diverse causes — "dead body," "bone," 
 " leprous person," *' market," &c., — inducing defilement; 
 and the diverse agencies, — simple water, water and heifer 
 ashes, blood, &c., — employed to remove these defilements; 
 as also to the diverse modes — washing, pouring, sprinkling 
 — in which these agencies were employed to develop their 
 baptizing power. 
 
 The diverse baptizings of the Apostle, and the diverse 
 baptisms of the Patrists, are in the most absolute accord 
 with the diverse baptisms of the Classics. That the former 
 dififer in kind from the latter, is only confirmatory of the 
 diversity of baptisms, and establishes the statement of Am- 
 brose, "plurima baptismatum genera." 
 
 CARSON. 
 
 That the "diverse baptizings" are included in the "carnal 
 ordinances," (ordinances of the flesh,) is a matter of universal 
 acknowledgment. It is also certain, that " the blood of bulls 
 and of goats, and the ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, 
 sanctifying to the 'purifying of the flesh,'^ is an exposition of 
 the " ordinances of the j^esA." jtTow, the " ordinances of the 
 flesh" embrace "meats, and drinks, and diverse baptizings;" 
 and if " the sprinkling of the blood of bulls and of goats, and 
 the ashes of a heifer," does not enter into " meats and drinks," 
 it must be found in "diverse baptizings." 
 
 This, however, is strenuously objected to by friends of the 
 theory, and, as usual, with special vehemence by Dr. Carson. 
 He says, "the sprinklings under the law cannot be included 
 under the baptisms, but might be included in the carnal 
 ordinances." True, "the sprinklings" are in the carnal 
 ordinances, but only because "the baptisms '"'' are there. 
 
 25 
 
386 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 The sprinklings and the baptizings are the same thing under 
 diversity of designation. The sprinkling expresses the mode 
 in which the agency was employed, and the baptizing indi- 
 cates the controlling influence attendant upon the agency so 
 applied. 
 
 Dr. Carson farther asks: "How do we know that what 
 are here called 'divers baptisms,' w^ere performed by sprink- 
 ling and efl'usion ? Can this be done in any other way than 
 by ascertaining the meaning of the word baptism by the 
 usage of the language ?" And then to determine this usage, 
 he appeals to case after case of use, as far removed in char- 
 acter from the case in hand, as the poles are in distance from 
 each other. As well might Dr. Gale repudiate Carson's plea 
 for dyeing the lake, on the ground that usage has settled the 
 meaning of /5a-rw, and proceed, in vindication of his position, 
 to adduce cases in which it does, unquestionably, mean to 
 dip. The position of the theorists, now, in relation to ^a-ri'^oi^ 
 is just the same with that which they formerly assumed with 
 respect to (^dr^ru}. The same shifts of "figure," which are 
 appealed to under embarrassment, now, were used, under 
 like circumstances, then. 
 
 Dr. Carson goes on to ask: "Does he refer to the bap- 
 tisms what was done with the sprinkling of the blood ? 
 There is not the semblance of truth for the assertion. The 
 subtilty of Satan himself cannot plausibly contrive to force 
 these sprinklings into the divers baptisms." 
 
 Notwithstanding the Doctor's opinion as to what " the 
 subtilty of Satan " can accomplish, there are very many who 
 believe that Paul, without any such aid, has quite "plausibly 
 contrived to force these sprinklings into the divers bap- 
 tisms." 
 
 But Paul does not stand alone in this achievement. Am- 
 brose has been no less successful. This is his language: 
 " Per hyssopi fasciculum aspergebatur agni sanguine qui 
 mundari volebat typico baptismate." (i, 875.) "He who 
 wished to be purified with typical baptism was sprinkled with 
 the blood of the lamb by a bunch of hyssop." 
 
 I do not know how much of "subtilty" or "force" there 
 
DIVERSE BAPTISMS. 387 
 
 may be in this statement, but I do know that, by very direct 
 statement, sprinklings are brought into unity with baptisms. 
 The same writer (iii, 399) says again : " Qui enira baptizatur, 
 et secundum legem et secundum evangelium videtur esse 
 mundatus; secundum legem quia hyssopi ftisciculo Moyses 
 aspergebat sanguinem agni." "For he who is baptized, both 
 according to the law and according to the gospel, is seen to 
 be made pure; according to the law, because Moses, with a 
 bunch of hyssop, sprinkled the blood of the lamb." 
 
 If language be designed to express thought, and not to 
 conceal it, then Ambrose has placed, not "plausibly," but 
 absolutely, "the sjmnkling of the blood of the lamb" among 
 the diverse baptizings. 
 
 Let us note the success of another in this same impossible 
 (according to the theory) direction. 
 
 Josephus (Jew. Ant., iv, 4) says : " ^aTzriaavrei; T£ 7.ai r^c rifpa'z 
 
 Tamtifz ^c? '^^lyi'^'t 'ippaivov rpizTj 7.a\ f/5^«/£ij twv rjpeplbv — and also bap- 
 tizing by this ashes put into spring water, they sprinkled on 
 the third and seventh day." 
 
 This embraces the other sprinkling — ashes of the heifer — 
 mentioned by Paul. IsTow, with such help from Ambrose 
 and Josephus, I do not see why any one (with subtilty far 
 less than that usually attributed to Satan) might not be able, 
 without force, to identify these sprinklings with those " divers 
 baptizings." 
 
 Let it be observed, that neither Ambrose nor Josephus 
 confounds sprinkling and baptism, so as to make the sprink- 
 ling the baptism and the baptism the sprinkling. They 
 make the baptism to depend, in the one case, on the influ- 
 ence of the blood of the lamb, which is applied (not of neces- 
 sity but of fact) by sprinkling. In the other case, the bap- 
 tism is effected through the ashes of a heifer ; the influence 
 of which, also, is developed, infact, by the act of sprinkling. 
 The blood, the sprinkling, and the purification, are as dis- 
 tinct as are the wine, the drinking, and the intoxication. 
 
 Because the sprinkling is not a dipping, or because it is 
 not " continued long enough " to produce a covering in blood 
 or in ashes and water, it is concluded that there is no bap- 
 
388 JUDAIC BAPTISM, 
 
 tism. But siicli forget that there are bapti.mis by influential 
 agencies, as well as mersions in physical substances. 
 
 Sacrificial blood, and emblematical ashes and water, sprin- 
 kled have as much power to baptize, as the intoxicating or 
 drugged cup drunk, has power to baptize. If wine drunk, 
 baptizes (without mersion) into intoxication, the blood of the 
 lamb sprinkled, baptizes (without mersion) into purification. 
 
 If Satyrus could baptize (without mersion) into stupefac- 
 tion, by means of a few opiate drops mixed with wine, why 
 could not Moses baptize (without mersion) into ceremonial 
 purity, by means of a few drops of ashes mixed with spring 
 water ? 
 
 If clean linen maybe hapted (dyed) hj spriyiklinghlocfdi upon 
 it, as truly as b}^ dipping it into blood, why may not an 
 unclean man be baptized (made ceremonially clean) by the 
 sprinkling of clean water upon him, as truly as by his being 
 dipped into clean water? If ^dizrui can lay aside a dipping, 
 why cannot ^aTtziZw lay aside a mersion ? 
 
 Dr. Carson will not deny, that sacrificial blood, and the 
 ashes of a heifer sprinkling the unclean, were competent 
 thoroughly to change the condition of the ceremonially un- 
 clean, making them thoroughly ceremonially clean; for by 
 such denial he would place himself in direct antagonism 
 with the clearest teachings, and ritual provisions, of the 
 word of God. But should he deny, that this thoroughly 
 controlling influence of blood, and ashes, over the condi- 
 tion of those upon whom they were sprinkled, can be justly 
 termed baptism; then, he places himself in antagonism with 
 the teachings of all profane Greek literature. And if he 
 denies, that this influence, controlling condition, is in fact 
 called baptism; then, he places himself in antagonism with 
 all Patristic literature which treats of Jewish purifications; 
 as, also, with the Jewish historian who was personally con- 
 versant with, and a participant in those observances. 
 
 The "subtilty of Satan" will be more severely taxed to 
 get these sprinklings out of the " divers baptisms," than to 
 force them into them. 
 
 Will "the theory" venture to make the trial? 
 
SYMBOL BAPTISM. 389 
 
 JUDAIC AND JOHANNIC BAPTISM. 
 SYMBOL BAPTISM. 
 
 . . . paTiTifffiu) ffuvisvai • ourcu yap ttjv jjdTzrcffcv aTzvosy.rrf/ abrw cpavsladai^ 
 p.7j inl rivaJv d/xapzddwv T^apacrrjffec ^ptufxi'/wv, aX'/C if dyviia rod awixaroq^ 
 are drj xai t^c (pu^'7j<; duaiuawrj ■Kpoev.y.zy.adapiib^riz, . . . 
 
 "For Herod slew him (John the Baptist), a good man, and 
 exhorting the Jews to cultivate virtue, and observing upright- 
 ness toward one another and piety toward God, to come for 
 baptizing (purifying) ; for thus the baptism would appear accep- 
 table to him, not using it for the remission of sins, but for purity 
 of the body, provided that the soul has been, previously, purged 
 by righteousness." — Josephus, Jew. Ant., xviii, 6. 2. 
 
 The Latin translation of this passage by Valesius, in his 
 edition of Eusebius (ii, 116), is as follows : " Quippe hunc Herodes 
 obtruncaverat, cum esset vir bonus, Judajosque ad virtutis stu- 
 dium excitaret, prsecipiens ut juste quidem inter se, erga Deum 
 autem pie agentes, ad lavacrum accederent. Tunc enim demum 
 acceptum Deo fore lavacrum aiebat, cum eo non ad expiationem 
 criminum uterentur, sed ad corporis munditiem, ut mentibus 
 jam ante per justitiam expurgatis, corporis quoque adderent 
 puritatem." 
 
 BAPTISM OF JUDAISM AND OF JOHN MET TOGETHER. 
 
 This quotation shows very clearly that Josephus, as well 
 as the Patrists and the apostle, believed in "divers bap- 
 tisms." This diversity, as between Judaic and Jobannic 
 baptisms, is made both distinct and broad. The one bap- 
 tism is a purilication of the body; the other is a purification 
 of the soul. In the one case the agency eifecting the puri- 
 fication is water; in the other it is righieous7iess. ^ "E-ighteous- 
 uess" is not represented as an element within which the soul 
 is to be immersed; but the agency by which the purified 
 condition of the soul is to be accomplished. The same must 
 be true of the water used in effecting the other purified con- 
 dition, that of the body. Water, as ritually used by the 
 Jev7, was not used to remove physical pollution, but cere- 
 
390 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 monial. Its competence for this duty did not depend upon 
 any natural quality; but upon a communicated quality de- 
 pendent upon its appointment to this use. In view of such 
 appointment it was possessed of a '• power," when used by 
 sprinkling or otherwise, to change the condition of the body, 
 removing it out of ceremonial pollution into ceremonial 
 purity; as truly, as "righteousness" had power to change 
 the condition of the soul, removing it out of a condition of 
 spiritual pollution into a condition of spiritual purity. 
 
 DIVERSITY. 
 
 Josephus, in common with all other writers quoted, rep- 
 resents the water used in Jewish purifications as an efficient 
 agency^ and not as an element within which mersion is to take 
 place. But in his view water no longer occupies the posi- 
 tion of an efiicient agency in John's baptism. John's bap- 
 tism is of the soul and not of the body. Water is used in 
 this baptism ; but not as having power to control spiritual 
 results. 
 
 The historian still represents water in its Jewish aspect, as 
 having power to purify the body; which becomes a symbol 
 of, or complementary to, the full purification of the entire 
 man, when the soul is purified by "righteousness." 
 
 I do not now enter upon the discussion as to the perfect 
 correctness of the view of John's baptism as entertained by 
 Josephus. That will come up hereafter. It is enough, in 
 passing, to indicate the fact recognized by him as to the 
 essential difterence in their nature, and the no less essential 
 difl'erence in the agencies by which they were eflfected. 
 
 But Josephus could have no misconception as to Judaic 
 baptism. And he tells us, that it consisted in a condition of 
 physical ceremonial purity induced by the ritual agency of watery 
 ashes, ^-c. , used in sprinkling. 
 
 Having, now, passed in review all the evidence within our 
 reach as to the nature of Judaic baptism, together with the 
 agencies and their manner of use in its accomplishment, and 
 having heard from Jewish lips the announcement of another 
 baptism, a higher and better^ even than that of the Fore- 
 
RESULTS. , 391 
 
 runner; we will here pause to look back upon our course 
 and gather up some of its results, in order to our better 
 preparation to determine the question, which is next in order, 
 What was John's baptism f 
 
 EESULTS. 
 Material for Judgment. 
 
 1. We have before us adequate material for an intelligent 
 determination as to the distinctive character of Judaic bap- 
 tism, as well as for the confirmation of conclusions previously 
 reached in Classic Baptism. 
 
 The number of facts embraced in the investigation is not 
 less than fifty, and the number of times in which the Greek 
 word, in one form or another, appears, is more than three 
 times fifty. 
 
 The facts are all taken from Jewish sources, from writings 
 both inspired and uninspired. Ten Jewish writers employ 
 the word in application to their religious rites and to matters 
 apart from religion. 
 
 Christian writers, with one consent, interpret these facts 
 of Jewish religious history as cases of baptism. 
 
 The time embraced by the usage of this word by Jewish 
 writers, in application to their religious rites, extends through 
 several centuries. 
 
 Such varied and abundant material leaves nothing to be 
 desired for the intelligent determination of the meaning of 
 this word from usage. 
 
 Usage, of Jew and Greek, harmonioiis. 
 
 2. The usage of this word by Jewish writers is in the most 
 perfect accord with the usage of Greek Classic writers. 
 
 By this statement I do not mean to affirm that the Jew 
 uses ^anziZoj only in the same applications as the Greek ; 
 but I mean to say, that whatever application they make of 
 the word, religious or otherwise, they are governed by the 
 same principles and in recognition of the same fundamental 
 meaning. 
 
392 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 (1.) There is no di'p'ping in the Jewish use of the word. In 
 all the instances cited from the writings of Josephus and 
 Philo, in the translations of Sjmmachus and Aquila, in the 
 facts of the' Old Testament and of the Apocrypha, there is 
 not a single case in which it is stated that the baptism was 
 by dipping, or in which there is any adequate inferential 
 evidence to show that the baptism was effected by the modal 
 act of dipping. 
 
 Jewish and Greek usage are, here, at one. 
 
 (2.) The Jew recognizes baptisms of intusposition without 
 limit of time as to their continuance. These baptisms are 
 of two kinds. Those in which no influence is exerted over 
 the baptized object. As in the case of the sword of Simon 
 baptized into his own body. The sword exerts a destruc- 
 tive influence, but no influence is exerted over the sword 
 by its mersion. So, in the case of the axe fallen into the 
 Jordan. The iron is not aflected by its watery envelop- 
 ment. Those in which controlling influence is exerted over the 
 baptized object. Such cases are those of ships sunk to the 
 bottom of the sea; and of the human race baptized in the 
 waters of the deluge. These baptisms are attended with in- 
 fluences absolutely controlling in their power. And, herein, 
 they are most essentially distinguished from the preceding 
 cases of baptism, and give origin to the secondary usage of 
 the word in which mersion disappears, and a changed con- 
 dition stands alone. 
 
 (3.) The Jew employs verbal figure to indicate the source 
 and nature of the baptizing influence, without demand for, 
 or allowance of, intusposition. 
 
 Thus, Josephus speaks of " baptism into insensibility and 
 sleep." This phraseology is modelled after the form which 
 is expressive of the introduction of an object within a physi- 
 cal substance for the purpose of securing the full influence 
 of the enveloping material. Cases of this character may be 
 found in Classic Baptism, p. 266. Objects are introduced, 
 baptized, " into the water (e^? rd udcup,") " into the lake (ek ri;> 
 Uiivfiv""), " into milk (ekydXa yovauo^"), " into the blood (ek rd 
 alfxa"). In all these cases there is intusposition for an in- 
 
RESULTS. 393 
 
 definitely prolonged time of the object within the water, the 
 lake, the milk, and the blood; and in all of these cases the 
 intusposition is not an end, but a means to an end, namely, 
 to secure a full development of influence; and in each 
 case the influence developed is peculiar. The pole smeared 
 with pitch, mersed into water impregnated with an aurifer- 
 ous quality, becomes incrusted with gold. Human beings 
 mersed, in simple water of the lake, are drowned. A medi- 
 cal prescription mersed, in woman's milk, becomes emollient. 
 A hand mersed, in the bloody pool of the battle-field, be-- 
 comes fitted to write, in gory characters, " vanquished, not 
 conquered." It is most obvious, that there can be no inter- 
 change among these enveloping elements, substituting the 
 one for the other. " Woman's milk" cannot be substituted 
 for " gold impregnated w^ith water," into which a pitch- 
 smeared pole may be mersed in order that it may be gilded. 
 Nor can gold-water be substituted for woman's milk, in order 
 that a mersed blister or pessary may be made more sooth- 
 ing. Lake-water cannot be substituted for blood, that a 
 hand mersed into it may write a battle record. ITor can the 
 crimson flowings of gory wounds be substituted for lake 
 waters, in which a vanquished host may be mersed, and 
 drowned. No more can the ^c<; dvacffdrjffcav xai uTtvov of Josephus 
 (into which Gedaliah was baptized) be transformed into gold- 
 water, lake-water, woman's milk, human blood, or anything 
 else whatever. There is as much of irrationality in putting 
 Gedaliah, by imagination, into a water-pool, as there is in 
 putting a pitched pole into woman's milk to extract gold. 
 " Insensibility and sleep" must remain insensibilUy and sleep; 
 just as "gold-water" must rem.am gold-water ; and "woman's 
 milk" must remain woman's milk. 
 
 But it may be said, a man cannot be put within "insen- 
 sibility and sleep ; " must we not then convert (in imagina- 
 tion) these things into fluids, that Gedaliah may be put 
 within them?. I answer, no; (1.) Because it is beyond the 
 power of imagination to convert " insensibility" or "sleep" 
 into distinctive fiuids. (2.) To imagine them to be fluids 
 without a distinctive character, would be as irrational as to 
 
394 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 confound gold-water and woman's milk. (3.) To put Geda- 
 liah within any fluid would never answer Josephus's purpose ; 
 but would put him into that sleep "which knows no wak- 
 ing." 
 
 Josephus never meant to put the imagination under bonds 
 to accomplish the impossible absurdity of putting a man 
 within a liquefied insensibility and sleep ; nor yet the im- 
 possible conception of putting him within them under any 
 condition. 
 
 Is it asked, "Why then does Josephus use the phraseology, 
 ' baptized into insensibility and sleep ' ? " I answer, because he 
 means to express a condition characterized by the controlling 
 influences of " insensibility and sleep." For this purpose he 
 conjoins these things with ISanrc'Cuj elq; phraseology used in 
 physics to secure the development of any distinctive influ- 
 ence belonging to its adjunct. Thus (^anri'^u) dq with gold- 
 water, with lake-water, with woman's milk, with human 
 blood, indicates the full influence distinctively attaching to 
 these several elements over an object mersed in them for an 
 indefinitely prolonged period. And when conjoined with 
 "insensibility and sleep," it denotes the full influence dis- 
 tinctivel}' belonging to these elements over the object brought 
 within their control, not by mersion within them, (for this is 
 impossible whether of reality or of imagination,) but in that 
 way which is appropriate to the case, and which is expressly 
 stated by Josephus, namely, by excessive wine-drinking. 
 
 The ofl5ce, then, of the phrase [^aizri'^u) hq, is to conduct us, 
 in thought, to those cases where influence is sought as the 
 end, and mersion is used as the means; while its adjunct, 
 " insensibility and sleep," teaches us that the end only is to 
 be retained, and the form for securing that end is to be re- 
 jected as unsuited to the case. 
 
 In all this, the Jew is in perfect accord w.ith the Greek. 
 It has been abundantly shown in Classic Baptism, that con- 
 dition resultant from controlling influence, and secured with- 
 out mersion, was placed, without hesitation or discrimina- 
 tion, among baptisms. Josephus exhibits this truth in the 
 clearest and strongest manner, by using the complete phrase- 
 
RESULTS. 895 
 
 ology of verbal figure. The hand is bapied, not by dipping, 
 (the mode ia rejected,) but hj 'pressing a berry; the body and 
 the mind are baptized, not by mersion, (the mode is rejected,) 
 but by drinking wine. 
 
 (4.) The Jew employs this Greek word, like Classic writers, 
 absolutely, and appropriatedly, to denote a specific baptism. 
 
 The Greeks thus used it to express a condition of drunk- 
 enness; the Jew used it, on the same principles, to express 
 a condition of ceremonial religious purity. There was the 
 same right to appropriate to the one use or the other. Alien 
 as is drunkenness from purity, the word, in itself, was equally 
 susceptible of application in the one direction or the other. 
 The baptism of the god Bacchus (C. B., p. 324), and of the 
 demi-god Silenus (p. 330), was effected by drinking, and not 
 by mersion. The baptism of Jehovah was effected by sprink- 
 ling ashes, blood, and water, and not by mersion. This bap- 
 tism was, by eminence. Judaic baptism. ■ 
 
 Jewish Baptisms not Dippings. 
 
 3. Jewish baptisms were effected generally neither by 
 dippings nor by envelopings, but by influential agencies, 
 variously applied, usually by sprinkling. 
 
 This fact stands out in the boldest relief, and governs the 
 whole course of Patristic interpretation. This development 
 is only a repetition of that in Classic Baptism. There, in 
 score after score of baptisms, there is not one word said of 
 dipping or of envelopment, l^othing appears but an influ- 
 ential agency, changing the condition, after its own nature, 
 and thus effecting a baptism. 
 
 The Classics recognized a " power '^ in wine, and in a drug, 
 and in a thousand other things, to baptize. They speak of 
 water impregnated with a quality — '■Hncerto medicamine" — 
 by which it was able to change the condition of those com- 
 ing in contact with it, just as Bethesda's water received a 
 "quality," by which it was able to change the condition of 
 those coming under its power. 
 
 Let it be pointedly noted, that it was not the fluid, as such, 
 
396 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 which effected the baptism, but a foreign " quality," im- 
 parted, to it, whose "power" to baptize was not restricted 
 to any modal use. 
 
 While th'C Classics use one class of agencies to effect their 
 baptisms, the Jews use those of a different character to effect 
 their distinctive baptism. The ashes of a red heifer, sacri- 
 ficial blood, and living water, have, with them, a power to 
 baptize (to change the ceremonial condition from defilement 
 to purity), so as other ashes, blood, or water, have not. This 
 shows, demonstrably, that the baptism does not consist in a 
 dipping, or in an envelopment, but in an effect produced. 
 The Patrists, in like manner, make the baptism to depend 
 not on the receptivity of the element, but on a " vis," or 
 " qualitas," not inherent in it and not dependent on any 
 modal use of it, for its development. A coal of fire, or a 
 flaming sword, therefore, can baptize as readily and as legiti- 
 mately, as any or. as any amount of fluid element. 
 
 A Jew, riiually sprinkled by ashes, (to which, by divine ap- 
 pointment, was communicated a power to cleanse from cere- 
 monial defilement,) was as truly baptized, as was Aristobulus 
 drowned in the fish-pool. 
 
 The evidence is overwhelming, in support of the posi- 
 tion, that Jewish baptisms were effected by influential agencies, 
 usually, developing their power over the object baptized by the act 
 
 of SPRINKLING. 
 
 The Theorists made Apologists. 
 
 4. The facts of these Jewish baptisms, and their inter- 
 pretation by most learned Grecians, force the theorists into 
 an unvarying apologetic attitude. 
 
 Any one who has passed over the course through which 
 we have been led, by Jew and Patrist, must profoundly feel, 
 that nowhere along the route is aid or comfort to be found 
 for the theory which ascribes to /?a-rttw " one meaning, dip, 
 and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature." 
 
 In the baptism of the sword, mersed into Simon's body, 
 there is no dipping. In the baptism of the ship, sunk into 
 
RESULTS. 397 
 
 the sea, there is no dipping. In the baptism of Aristobulus, 
 drowned by the Galatians, there is no dipping. In the bap- 
 tism of the human race in the deluge waters, there is no 
 dipping. In the baptisms by washing, by sprinkling, and 
 by pouring, there is no dipping. In the baptism by the 
 waving sword, and by the touch of the coal of fire, there is 
 no dipping. In the baptism by suffering, and terror, there 
 is no dipping. 
 
 Everywhere the theory is called upon to apologize for the 
 absence of " the only meaning," and to construct, by some 
 extravagance of rhetoric or imagination, a grotesque substi- 
 tute for it. 
 
 On the other hand, we confidently appeal to the theorist 
 himself, who may think our view to be but a counterfeit of 
 the truth, and ask him, Whether counterfeit was ever more 
 like the truth ? "Whether the truth itself ever met more 
 squarely every fact, resolved every difficulty, and moved on 
 more harmoniously with the laws of language ? 
 
 If the theory is to be sustained, it must be on some other 
 ground than that which is covered by Judaic baptism. Here, 
 there is but repudiation of its postulations, and a deaf ear 
 for its apologies. 
 
 Classic Baptism Confirmed. 
 
 5. The farther investigation, now instituted, confirms the 
 conclusion reached in Classic Baptism, that condition of in- 
 tusposition involving complete influence, and not modal act, 
 is the fundamental idea of the word; while it advances to a 
 secondary use, in which intusposition (as the form by which 
 the influence is effected) is lost, and influence, in whatsoever 
 way operative, (if capable of thoroughly changing the con- 
 dition of its object and subjecting it to itself,) takes the 
 place of intusposition. 
 
 The illustrations vindicating these positions furnished by 
 Judaic Baptism, are, if possible, more explicit and more 
 utterly coucludiug repl}^, than those found in Classic Bap- 
 tism. What can be more out of the reach of all rational 
 
398 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 opposition, than the baptism by the sprinkling of heifer 
 ashes, as announced by Josephus ? or by the sprinkling of 
 the blood of the lamb, as declared by Ambrose? What 
 should be more conclusive of all controversy as to a dipping 
 or an envelopment being essential to a baptism, than a bap- 
 tism efiected by the waving of a flamincj sword, or by the inur- 
 ing of water upon an altar, or ih& bapiisrii of sin itself? 
 
 I cannot venture to believe that these conclusions will be 
 accepted by the present friends of the theory; but I do dare 
 to believe that there is such a self-evidencing power in truth, 
 that those who come after them, with minds less preoccupied 
 with mistaken conceptions, will accept them as truths from 
 which there is no escape, and from which, I am happy to be- 
 lieve, they will not wish to escape. 
 
 Ajypropriatmi — Ceremonial Purificaiion. 
 
 6. Finally, in connection with Jewish ritual purifications, 
 ^oKxi^u) secures the meaning to "purify ceremonially. 
 
 "Whether, in other relations, it ever expresses a purification 
 broader and higher than that which is merely ceremonial, 
 is not now a question. Dr. Edward Williams, more than a 
 century since, and President Beecher and Professor Godwin, 
 more recently, have argued with eminent ability and accom- 
 plished scholarship, to show that this word means to "purify. 
 They failed to establish, fully, their views in the minds of 
 thoughtful persons, not because there was not great and evi- 
 dent truth in many of their positions, but because the funda- 
 mental idea of the word not having been clearly traced out, 
 and the development of this specific meaning thence de- 
 duced, the truth, while seen, was not seen without a pen- 
 umbra, and its boundaries not always accurately indicated. 
 They, consequently, put in claim for this meaning, in some 
 cases where such claim could not be satisfactorily estab- 
 lished, and thus threw doubt over those claims which were 
 well grounded. If I were to say, /Sarrntw means to make 
 drunk, and then were to apply this meaning to all cases of 
 stupefaction, an opponent, who should show that some par- 
 
RESULTS. 399 
 
 ticular case of stupefaction was produced, not by an intoxi- 
 cant, but by an opiate, might shake confidence, not merely 
 in that particular application, but in the general position. 
 
 It is essential, to intelligent conviction, that the origin of 
 meanings claimed, should be clearly traced, and the limits 
 of their dominion be rightfully defined. When this is done, 
 conviction of the truth sooner or later is sure to follow. In 
 claiming that this word means " to purify ceremonially," we 
 acknowledge our obligation to show how this meaning may 
 originate under the laws of language, and to show its actual 
 development by facts of usage. This obligation we have at- 
 tempted to meet. 
 
 1^0 one questions, but that a sentence of many words, each 
 with a distinct thought, may be absorbed by some single 
 word of such sentence, which word will express a thought 
 the result of the whole. Thus : " He drinks intoxicating 
 liquor until he becomes drunk," is abbreviated into, "He 
 drinks intoxicating liquor;" and then into, "He drinks;" 
 when "drinks" has absorbed the entire sentence, and ex- 
 presses the resultant condensed thought of the whole, viz. : 
 " He gets drunk." 
 
 And when I say of one: "He is like a drinking man;" 
 drinking does not express the act of swallowing a liquid, but 
 the condition of a man who is in the habit of getting drunk. 
 A new meaning has been secured for the word. So in the 
 sentence, " Baptized by wine into drunkenness," abbrevia- 
 tion drops "into drunkenness," and then " by wine;" while 
 " baptized " remains the sole representative of the whole, 
 and expresses the entire resultant thought. Thus: "I am 
 one of those baptized," (0. B., p. 317,) means, "I am one of 
 those made drunk." And, " He is like one baptized," (C. B., 
 p. 330,) means, " He is like one made drunk." The word 
 has secured a new^ meaning. 
 
 Under precisely the same conditions of the laws of lan- 
 guage and the facts of usage, frequent in occurrence, and 
 reaching through centuries of continuance, ^anriZu) secures 
 the meaning to purify ceremonially. 
 
 No theorist can deny the fitness of the language, "Bap- 
 
400 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 tized by heifer ashes, by sacrififia! blood, by living water, 
 into ceremonial purity." Neither can he fleiiy the lawful 
 abbreviation, "baptized by heifer ashes," or that of the 
 single word, "baptized;" which word shall embody, within 
 itself, the one thought wliich is the joint product of the 
 several parts of the sentence, to wit, mach ceremonially pure. 
 And when Josephus speaks of ^^ baptizing by heifer ashes," 
 he speaks of maJdruj ceremowially pure by this agency. And 
 when the Son of Sirach speaks of one '■'■baptized from the 
 dead," he speaks of one made ceremonialhj pure. And when, 
 two centuries afterward, the Jew wondered that the Sa- 
 viour did not "first baptize before eating," he expressed his 
 wonder that he did not ceremonially purify himself. Such 
 had become the direct meaning of the word, as shown by 
 its absolute use, for centuries, in connection with ritual 
 purifications. 
 
 The conclusion, then, of our inquiry is this: 
 Judaic Baptism is a condition of Ceremonial Purification 
 effected by the washing of the hands or feet, by the sprinkling 
 of sacrificial blood or heifer ashes, by the pouring upo7i of water, 
 by the touch of a coal of fire, by the waving of a flaming sword, 
 and by divers other modes and agencies, dependent, in no wise, on 
 any form of act or on the covering of the object. 
 
 With such evidence, deduced from language development, 
 sustaining the previous conclusion of Classic Baptism, that 
 the word makes demand for a condition and not for a modal 
 act; and with such varied, explicit, and authoritative evi- 
 dence sustaining the present conclusion of Judaic Baptism, 
 that the word makes demand for a condition of ceremonial 
 purity; any attempt to overthrow these conclusions can have 
 but little happier issue than an attempt to overturn this solid 
 globe of ours, while no answer comes to the despairing cry — 
 
 '' /los Moi nor im." 
 
INDEX. 
 
 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 
 
 Agency nsr Baptism : 
 In baptisms the agency must be 
 carefully distinguished from 
 the receiving element. In Ju- 
 daic baptism the agencies are: 
 water {per), Holy Spirit {per), 
 222 ; fire {per, and Ablative 
 without preposition), 223 ; 
 flaming sword (Ablative), 
 223 ; (ISTominative), 224 ; pa- 
 tristic view, 227; "confes- 
 sion," 221 ; "passion" (Gen- 
 itive), 228 ; water, Spirit, fire 
 (Genitive with 6id, Dative 
 without preposition), 241, 
 246 ; t/c, Sia, 250 ; 6ia, 252 ; hy 
 heavy sins, a ligno, per lig- 
 num, 252 ; spring water, heif- 
 er ashes, blood, 385. 
 !N". B. — A baptism with agency, 
 having a characteristic thoroughly 
 changing condition, is a fully ex- 
 pressed baptism. 
 Ambrose : 
 religious washing (= cleansing) 
 without water, or by water, 
 or anything having power 
 to cleanse, applied in any 
 way ; water, a whole river, 
 "washed " by a touch of the 
 body of Christ (per carnem 
 Christi), 125, 126, 141 ; water 
 does not heal (= baptize) 
 without the Holy Spirit, 143 ; 
 tree sweetens (= baptizes) a 
 
 fountain, 144; the deluge a 
 baptism, because washes the 
 world defiled by blood, 148, 
 151 ; Kaaman's baptism a 
 type baptism, because cleans- 
 ing, 163 ; four diverse bap- 
 tisms, 168 ; multa genera hap- 
 tismatum sed unum (143), 180, 
 380 ; sprinkling baptizes, 185 ; 
 baptism by sprinkling, 189; 
 harmonizes with the principle 
 of classic baptism, 193 ; aliud 
 genus baptismatis (from that 
 of the axe), 267 ; passage of 
 the Eed Sea a type baptism, 
 because the Israelites {= 
 Christians) were saved and 
 the Egyptians (= sins) and 
 Pharaoh (= Satan) perished, 
 301 ; baptism by pouring, 
 329 ; interpretation, 340 ; 
 altar sprinkled a type bap- 
 tism, 350 ; sprinkling blood 
 one of the "diverse baptiz- 
 ings," 387. 
 
 Apocrypha : 
 baptisms of, 345-375. 
 
 Ariantheus : 
 baptized by sprinkhng =" wash- 
 ing {'Aovrpcp) of regeneration," 
 125. 
 
 Aristobtjltts : 
 baptized (drowned), 66-70. 
 
 Ashes, Heifer : 
 give new quality (ceremonially 
 ( 421 ) 
 
422 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 purifying, Numbers 19, Heb. 
 9:13) to water, 101; heifer 
 ashes water sprinkled bap- 
 tizes (=: purifies), brings into 
 a new condition, 106 ; ashes 
 are the agency, water is the 
 vehicle, 107 ; to make drunk 
 by drinking, a meaning of 
 /JaTTTt'Cu legitimately deduced 
 by Greeks, and to make cere- 
 monially pure by sprinkling, 
 a meaning no less legitimately 
 deduced by Jews, 107 ; cover- 
 ing or bathing in these puri- 
 fying ashes both impossible 
 and absurd, 110. 
 
 "difference as compared with 
 jia-Tu established " (ISTational 
 Baptist), 25 ; definition criti- 
 cized and answered, 27-31 ; 
 conclusion amplified, 57 ; re- 
 stated, 211 ; to put into or 
 under (Conant), 24 ; Baptist 
 view, e confesso, erroneous, 
 25 ; in Baptist use a variable 
 quantity, 79 ; secured the 
 meaning to make drunk, 84- 
 91 ; modal action unknown 
 to its usage, demands state, 
 condition, judgment of scho- 
 lars, 102 ; penetrating and 
 pervading influence, 103 ; an- 
 alogous condition without in- 
 tusposition, 105 ; means to 
 make ceremonially pure, le- 
 gitimately evolved from use 
 in Jewish rites, 107 ; preg- 
 nant word, 113 ; appropriated 
 meaning, 114 ; to purify, the 
 naturally developed meaning, 
 127 ; any other meaning than 
 " to purify " impossible, 234- 
 239. 
 
 Bajrri^'w e«f • 
 
 this phrase indicates (when etf 
 
 is in regimen with^ the receiv- 
 ing element) that the baptized 
 object passes out of one con- 
 dition into another condition 
 (either physical or ideal), and 
 imports that the person or 
 thing baptized is made fully 
 subject to the influence of the 
 real or ideal receiving element : 
 
 jSeiSaTTTiaiiEvov eIq avaa'dijalav nal 
 
 i-TTVOV, 92. 
 
 N. B. — This ideal usage of (iarr- 
 r<C" fif is emphatically the usage 
 of the New Testament appearing 
 there for the first time; expressing 
 subjection, in the fullest measure, 
 to the influence of the ideal ele- 
 ment. This is an elementary 
 truth in the interj)retation of the 
 
 N. T. lia-jVTi^u. 
 
 'BaTTTlCu EV'. 
 
 this phrase indicates, 1, locality, 
 place where the baptism took 
 
 place, k(ianTiC,eTO hv ry Tvapsfi 
 
 ^oT^r), 352; 2, time when, "in 
 [hv) that very night " (Hippo- 
 lytus), 326 ; 3, circumstance, 
 fiaTTTiCofievov kv (in == during) 
 yaTiyvT] "ship baptized," with 
 the remarkable circumstance 
 that it took place "in a 
 calm" [Clas. Bapt., 278, 3); 
 4, condition in which were tlve 
 haptizers (as afiecting the na- 
 ture of the baptism), '■'• jSaTtri- 
 
 UovTsg ug kv iraLdia baptizing as 
 
 being in sport," 66 ; 5, the con- 
 dition in which is the bap- 
 tized object, fiejda-nTia/UEVjjv kv ru 
 pdOec Toi) cufiarog intelligence 
 baptized in the depth of the 
 body, Clas. Bapt., 254, 6 ; hv 
 
 Ko7.vjijil/0pa, 60. 
 
 N. B. — These five diverse con- 
 ceptions expressed by h> following 
 ^anri^u show how carefuUy every 
 
INDEX. 
 
 423 
 
 case of such usage should be con- 
 sidered. The Kew Testament 
 presents examples of the first 
 class — locality, place where the 
 baptism took place, h epr//.iu, tv 
 'lopdavT] (see Johannic Bapt.), and 
 of the fourth class — the condition 
 in which were the baptizers, and 
 thus indicating the nature of their 
 baptisms; "He (Christ) was kv 
 IlvsvimTL 'Ayicj, and therefore bap- 
 tized, changed the condition of 
 the soul by divine power, that is, 
 regeneratively ;" "I (John) being 
 £v wvei'juaTC Kal 6vvnfisi 'HPu'on, and 
 
 therefore my power to baptize ex- 
 pressed as {h Man) in a symbol, 
 can only symbolly baptize." 
 
 The murderers of Aristobulus 
 professed to be "in sport," and 
 therefore sportively to baptize. 
 Alcibiades was in wrath, and 
 therefore declared his purpose 
 murderously to baptize. Timon 
 was in hatred, and therefore pro- 
 claimed his purpose to drown in 
 baptizing. 
 
 The conditions in which these 
 men were indicate the condition 
 of their baptism. The condition 
 in which was the Lord Jesus 
 Christ indicates the condition of 
 his baptism — the purification and 
 regeneration of the soul. The 
 condition of John, a servant, pre- 
 paring the way of his Lord, indi- 
 cates the condition of his baptism 
 — symbolizing that of his Lord's 
 regenerative baptism. 
 
 The fifth class, where h denotes 
 the baptized object as being al- 
 ready in and continuing in a con- 
 dition of baptism, does not appear 
 in the jSTew Testament ; it only 
 appears in connection with the 
 Passive voice, and could not by 
 
 any possibility have any place in 
 ritual Christian baptism. It fol- 
 lows, therefore, that in the New 
 Testament h following /Javrr/^w 
 never indicates the receiving ele- 
 ment in which the baptized object 
 rests. And to translate (ianTiaei 
 kv Tlvevfiari 'Ajlu he shall haptize 
 (persons) within the Holy Ghost is 
 not only to translate without au- 
 thority, but against aU authority. 
 The phrase, adjunct to the verb, 
 does not express the receiving ele- 
 ment, but qualifies the nature of 
 the baptism, by expressing the 
 power with which the baptizer is 
 invested, and might be translated 
 adverbially — "He shall baptize 
 
 divinely,'''' just as fiaTCTLL,ovTEg kv 
 
 ■Kaidia might be translated " bap- 
 tizing sportively.'''' So in jianT'i.'C,u 
 kv MaTL the adjunct phrase does 
 not express the receiving element, 
 but qualifies the nature of the 
 baptism, by expressing the power 
 with which the baptizer is in- 
 vested. It would be a thought- 
 less error to regard v6aTt as a 
 simple fluid ; it appears here in 
 the character of a symbol fluid, 
 adversative as to power and ex- 
 pository as to nature of HvEvjiarc 
 'A/iw, and in this symbol (tv Uarc) 
 is the limitation of John's power 
 to baptize ; therefore he baptizes 
 symbolly, "with water," as his 
 Lord baptizes divinely, "with the 
 HolyGrhost." And in like man- 
 ner Herod's suborned murderers 
 professed to baptize sportively, kv 
 
 ■naidia, "with sport." If v6aTL 
 
 represented the receiving element 
 (remember the verb, in the Kew 
 Testament, is in the Active voice), 
 then, as it was said of Aristobu- 
 lus, " being baptized (Passive), kv 
 
424 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Kolvfij3v0pa TsTievTa, in the pool, he 
 died," so it must have been said 
 of every disciple of John, " being 
 baptized in .water, he died." To 
 change a baptizing into a dipping 
 is to repudiate Greek ; to change 
 a "baptism into repentonce" into 
 a dipping into water is to repu- 
 diate the word of God. 
 
 as a last storm, 71 ; the city, 76 ; 
 "he would sink or epibaptize 
 the city" (Carson), 77. 
 BcLTZTKy/Lia '. 
 is never used to express a cov- 
 ering in water ; the word first 
 appears in the 'New Testament 
 where it is never found in 
 physical relations, but inva- 
 riably in spiritual relations 
 expressed or understood, as 
 
 fiaTTTiGfia fieravolag^ fiaTrrtCfia £<f 
 CKpeGiv dfiapTccjv, ''^ to /Sdnr/.a/ia 
 
 which John preached ;" 
 "John preached to ftuTtT tafia 
 
 fiETavoia^ \ ''''TO [3a7rT/.(T/ia fieTa- 
 voiaQ elf CKpeatv d/uapTiuv '^''^ 
 
 "John baptized to jidTVTLCfia 
 fiETavoiac^^^ using Water as a 
 symbol of this spiritually pu- 
 rifying baptism. This Chris- 
 tian (SaTTT/.a/Lia is not the out- 
 growth of Classic Greek, but 
 a development from Jewish 
 ceremonial purification, and 
 its advance to the perfect spir- 
 itual purification of the soul. 
 Christian writers after New 
 Testament times, beside this 
 inspired usage, present the 
 following diverse meanings 
 (the evident outgrowth of 
 its New Testament spiritual 
 meaning, and not of the no- 
 tion of a water covering) ; 1. 
 It expresses the purification of 
 
 water itself by a new quality 
 imparted to it, enabling it to 
 purify spiritually, r« Idlu fian- 
 TiafiaTi, 197 ; 2. It denotes the 
 water itself, because capable 
 of so purifying, 350 ; compare 
 with this the term Naphthar, 
 given to water for like reason, 
 345 ; 3. It denotes the water « 
 and the blood from the wound- 
 ed side of the Eedeemer, as 
 "two baptisms, " because of 
 their purifying power, 217 ; 4. 
 It denotes the purification 
 efiected by penitential tears, 
 martyr blood (baptisma san- 
 guinis), 197, and the death of 
 
 Christ [jSa-Tianbv ug nadapTinbv), 
 
 216 ; all because of their at- 
 tributed or real power to pu- 
 rify the soul. If any writer 
 for half a thousand years after 
 the close of inspiration used 
 jia-nTtajia to express a covering 
 in water it is unknown to 
 me. ' ' Simple ' ' water cannot 
 Christianly baptize, nor can a 
 dipping eflfect a pdirTny/xa^ 140 ; 
 has a religious meaning, Ba- 
 sil's definition, 141 ; Basil's 
 three ideas involved in this 
 word, 248-251. 
 
 BaTTTU ', 
 
 usage of a verb based not in its 
 action, but in the effects of 
 that action, proves a second- 
 ary meaning, 280. 
 
 Bd(j)y : 
 
 the work of the Holy Spirit in 
 the soul likened to a perfect 
 coloring, 143. 
 Bacchus : 
 
 baptism by Bacchus, 361 ; Bac- 
 chus himself baptized, 370. 
 Baptism, meanings of : 
 three meanings, all purifications 
 
INDEX. 
 
 425 
 
 (Basil the Great), 249 ; condi- 
 tion always present, dipping 
 never, 250 ; a religious mean- 
 ing sustained, 251 ; definition 
 of, 141. 
 
 Baptism, Judaic : 
 1, distinctively Jewish; 2, any 
 kind mentioned by Jewish 
 writers, 19 ; the Apostle Paul's 
 Red Sea baptism, 19, 289 ; 
 state of ceremonial purifica- 
 tion, 128 ; Saviour baptized 
 Judaically (Chrysostom), 169 ; 
 why imperfect, 189 ; of the 
 body, not of the soul, 289; 
 diversity in causes, agencies, 
 and modes, 385 ; to purify 
 ceremonially, a meaning se- 
 cured, 398. 
 
 Baptism, JoHif's : 
 why imperfect, 189 ; as com- 
 pared with baptism by the 
 Holy Spirit, 380. 
 
 Baptism, Patristic : 
 definition : changed condition 
 of soul, eflFected by a divine 
 quality or power communi- 
 cated to " simple " water, 141 ; 
 a divine power descends into 
 the pool, 164 ; not a physical 
 covering, 165. 
 
 Baptisms, Particulaii : 
 of a sword, "plunge," erro- 
 neous translation, 62 ; ships 
 sunk, crews drowned, 63 ; bap- 
 tism (drowning) of Aristobu- 
 lus, 66 ; ship voluntarily bap- 
 tized, not a dipping, 70 ; figu- 
 rative, 71 ; of the city. Jota- 
 pata by Josephus, 76 ; incon- 
 sistent interpretations of city 
 baptisms, 77 ; of the city Je- 
 rusalem, 78 ; appeal to water 
 floods, 78, 79 ; of the intellect 
 by gluttony, 83 ; by wine- 
 drinkirtg, 84; '^by drunken- 
 
 ness into insensibility and 
 sleep," 92, 93; by sprinkling 
 heifer ashes, 100 ; of the wa- 
 ters, at creation, 134 ; two 
 baptisms of wine, two of wa- 
 ter, 140 ; many kinds of bap- 
 tisms, 143; "are baptisms 
 which are not baptisms " = 
 washings of the body, however 
 performed, cannot be baptisms 
 so long as sin is not washed 
 away, 144 ; baptism of a pool 
 by a tree, 144 ; real baptisms 
 not quasi baptisms, 147 ; del- 
 uge a baptism, because sin 
 taken away, 149 ; Kaaman's 
 baptism, a change of condi- 
 tion, 163 ; Bethesda, a fourth 
 kind of baptism, 164 ; baptism 
 not a physical water covering, 
 165 ; MtTLTA GENERA, unum, 
 aliud, tertium, quartum, 168 ; 
 Christ's personal baptism. Ju- 
 daic, 169 ; baptism from the 
 bed, 169 ; baptism by "salu- 
 tary" washing, 172 ; washing 
 hands and feet, symbol bap- 
 tism, 175 ; baptism upon the 
 couch, 176-184 ; by sprink- 
 ling, 185 ; baptism by sprink- 
 ling blood of the lamb, 187- 
 193 ; baptism a purification, 
 194 ; hyssop, blood, ashes, pu- 
 rify =r baptize, 195 ; pouring, 
 sprinkling, baptize, 196 ; mar- 
 tyr blood baptizes, 197 ; water 
 itself baptized, 197 ; haptisma 
 sanguinis, 201 ; second bap- 
 tism by tears, 205 ; baptism 
 by circumcision, 206-214 ; 
 passover baptism, 216 ; con- 
 fession baptism, 221 ; haptis- 
 mum passionis, 227 ; baptism 
 of the fiery sword, 229 ; by a 
 coal of fire, 239-248 ; baptism 
 by the fire of judgment, 248 ; 
 
426 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 baptism of an axe, 251 ; pol- 
 lution baptism, 269 ; destruc- 
 tion baptism, 270 ; suffering 
 baptism, 272 ; sincerity bap- 
 tism, 274 ; baptism cleansing 
 the flesh and the body is use- 
 less ; baptism which cleanses 
 the soul is perfect, 278, 281 ; 
 baptism by my blood, 278 ; 
 terror baptism, 284 ; Ked Sea 
 baptism, 289; Jordan bap- 
 tism, 315 ; Jordan baptism of 
 Israel into Joshua, 320 ; altar 
 baptism by pouring, 328-342 ; 
 altar baptism by sprinkling, 
 346 ; baptism by spring wa- 
 ter, 352 ; " diverse baptisms " 
 (Paul), haptismata sunt diver sa 
 (Hilary), multa sunt genera 
 haptismatum (Ambrose), di- 
 verse baptisms (Chrysostom, 
 Basil, Justin Martyr, Greg- 
 ory Nazianzen), 380-382 ; di- 
 verse baptisms = diverse con- 
 ditions, 384 ; the sprinkling 
 of heifer ashes, one of the 
 "diverse baptizings," 385. 
 
 Baptist Quakteklt : 
 its objurgations, 48 ; its admis- 
 sions of that to establish which 
 the book was written, 49 ; 
 BaTT-w does take out what it 
 puts in, (3a7rTL(u does not take 
 out what it puts in, 50 ; get 
 rid of dip, 49, 50. 
 
 Baptist, The National : 
 Criticism of Classic Baptism, 
 23 ; why immerse expresses 
 condition and not form of ac- 
 tion, 23 ; no new meaning to 
 immerse, 24 ; admission that 
 a difference between (ia--u and 
 jiaTTTii,u has been established, 
 the one lifts out and the other 
 does not lift out that which is 
 put in, 25. 
 
 Baptist Theory : 
 lia-TL'u means a definite act, 
 
 " ALWAYS SIGNTFLES TO DIP, 
 NEVER EXPRESSING ANY- 
 THING BUT MODE" (Carson), 
 278 ; "has but one meaning; 
 in figures there is no different 
 meaning, always the same," 
 278 ; this theory fails at every 
 point to express the usage of 
 /3a7rr/Cu, not less, if not more, 
 than any other theory ever ad- 
 vanced by rational men to sus- 
 tain any position whatever, 
 76-82, et passim; trouble under 
 the theory by reason of state, 
 condition, emerging to the re- 
 pudiation of "act," 102-107; 
 friends of the theory not sat- 
 isfied, 108; the theory sinks 
 with the baptized axe to the 
 bottom of the Jordan, 260- 
 264 ; the theorist vainly strug- 
 gling with the facts of lan- 
 guage, 348-350. 
 Baptizer, The Great : 
 
 the Great Baptizer (the Lord 
 Jesus Christ) will baptize with 
 a flaming sword, 223 ; he bap- 
 tizes (= purifies) with sword 
 and fire sins which could not 
 be iDurged by the purification 
 of the Holy Spirit, 224 ; "the 
 Great Baptizer" is not the 
 great Dipper, 231-234. 
 Basil, The Great : 
 
 discourse against drunkards, 89 ; 
 sprinkling, a washing {'Aovrpu) 
 of regeneration, lY, 1001 ; 
 definition of baptism = a 
 thorough change of coyidition in 
 thought, word, and deed, 141, 
 142 ; the grace of baptism "a 
 fiood," because cleanses from 
 sin, 149 ; three subordinate 
 meanings of baptism, 249 ; 
 
INDEX. 
 
 427 
 
 sea and cloud agencies in the 
 Ked Sea baptism, 304 ; altar 
 baptized by three pourings, 
 329, 339. 
 
 Bathings : 
 by Greeks, by Egyptians, by 
 Hindoos, by Japanese, 7iot by 
 dipping or immersion,120-123. 
 
 Beechee, Pkesident Edward: 
 meaning of ?mvu, 119 ; meaning 
 of KOLTTf, 181 ; to purify cere- 
 monially, 398. 
 
 Belshazzar : 
 baptized by iniquity into terror, 
 287. 
 
 Bethesda, Pool of : 
 could not heal without the an- 
 gel, so, "simple" water can- 
 not baptize (= heal) without 
 "power" communicated to 
 it, 140 ; the healing a figure 
 of baptism, 164 ; no dipping 
 or immersing the man by the 
 angel, though both went down 
 into the water, 165, 166 ; thor- 
 ough change of condition in 
 this "fourth kind of bap- 
 tism," 164, 166. 
 
 Borrowed Words : 
 immerse, borrowed from ordi- 
 nary Latin use for ordinary 
 English use, has no corres- 
 pondent usage in Latin or 
 English with baptize, bor- 
 rowed from the Greek out of 
 a limited religious use in 
 which it appears in peculiar 
 phraseological combinations, 
 so that in the resultant con- 
 ception the meaning of (Sa-iv- 
 rlCid, as an independent word, 
 is wholly merged. To intro- 
 duce "immerse" as an iso- 
 lated word or in new combi- 
 nations, under the claim of 
 representing the Greek word 
 
 in its religious use, is an error 
 beyond the greatness of which 
 error cannot go. But this is 
 just what the friends of the 
 theory are attempting to do, 
 together with the additional 
 attempt to make " immerse " 
 now the equivalent of dip, 
 and now its antipodal in 
 power, according as exigen- 
 cies may demand the contra- 
 diction under a false theory. 
 Baptists would reject dip for 
 fia-a-u in the limited sphere of 
 dyeing, 270-272. 
 
 BUXTORF : 
 
 meaning of tabal, 157. 
 
 CALYnsr, JoHK : 
 Moses washes (= cleanses) by 
 sprinkling, 177, 178. 
 
 CAMPBELii, Principal (Scot- 
 land) : 
 Prince of Ehetoricians ; meta- 
 phorical becomes proper 
 meaning, 32. 
 
 Carmel, Altar of : 
 its baptism by pouring— a cru- 
 cial test of the theory, 328- 
 342. 
 
 Carson, Alexander, LL.D. : 
 translates the drowning baptism 
 of Aristobulus, "dip;" did 
 dip ever drown ? 67 ; error 
 in use of " dip," 68, 70 ; bap- 
 tism of Jotapata converted 
 into "sink" ( = ruin), so 
 abandoning his ground prin- 
 ciple, modal act, 77 ; baptism 
 of Jerusalem converted into 
 "ruined or sunk," instead of 
 a dipping, 82, so, contradicts 
 his position; baptize applied 
 to houses would disprove the 
 meaning "immerse," because 
 houses cannot be immersed 
 
428 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 (on Baptism, page 368), 82; 
 " absurd to mean immersion " 
 (= dipping) "and state after 
 immersion ' ' (= dipping) . 104 ; 
 on Josephus, 109 ; " no writer 
 of higher authority as to the 
 use and meaning of Greek in 
 the apostoUc age, ' ' 111 ; trans- 
 lation unallowable — ' ' dippeth 
 or baptizeth," 117; error as 
 to Zoiw, proof, 118-123 ; figure 
 invoked to make the deluge a 
 baptism, 150 ; would baptize 
 Noah, 150 ; baptism of Xaa- 
 man, 154; plea for "immer- 
 sions " through washings, er- 
 ror, 176 ; nightly pollutions, 
 181 ; on sprinkling baptisms, 
 190 ; error as to lavo, 200 ; 
 Mis to expound circumcision 
 baptism, 208 ; looking for act, 
 (dipping) in baptism, error, 
 213 ; claiming the axe bap- 
 tism as his bai^tism, error, 
 255 ; error in translating, 262 ; 
 my position, "means always 
 dip, mode only, same mean- 
 ing in figure, ' ' 278 ; ' ' dipping 
 in vermilion, likewise not in 
 the manner but in the effect," 
 279 ; compare, the Lord bap- 
 tizes with milk (white) = sin- 
 cerity, 274 ; Cox changes from 
 manner to efiect, 281; touching 
 a dead body defiles the whole 
 "flesh and body," and the 
 touch of sprinkled heifer ashes 
 cleanses the whole ' ' flesh and 
 body," 283; sink substituted 
 for dip ; dipping equalized 
 with an eternal state, aban- 
 doning "my position, " 287 ; 
 principle of interpretation in 
 Kaaman's baptism, wrong, 
 288 ; interpretation of Red Sea 
 baptism, novelty belonging to 
 
 the theory, 293 ; failure, 300 ; 
 admits h to mean with, 6?/, 
 307 ; exposition of the Carmel 
 altar baptism, unsatisfactory, . 
 331; "wetting with dew an 
 immersion," 333 ; Judith's 
 baptism, 352 ; argument on 
 diverse baptisms (Heb. 9 : 9, 
 10) not satisfactory, 386. 
 Christian Press, The : 
 criticism of Classic Baptism, 21 ; 
 "country pastor," 21. 
 
 CHRTSOST02I : 
 
 drops of blood purify {=^ bap- 
 tize) the earth, 152, 153, 169, 
 220. 
 
 Clarence, Duke of : 
 drowned (= baptized) in a butt 
 of wine, 106, 140. 
 
 Classic Baptism : 
 why presented separately, 20 ; 
 Baptist criticisms of, 21 ; bap- 
 tisms by fluid without cover- 
 ing, 167 ; agrees with patristic 
 baptism, 189. 
 
 Clemens Alexandrinus : 
 "passing into drunkenness," 
 " carrying down into insen- 
 sibility," "swallowed down 
 into the sea," "baptize out of 
 virtue mto vice," " lead oui of 
 one place into another place," 
 95, 96; baptism /wm the bed, 
 169 ; baptism wpo?i the bed 
 (= couch), 176, 180-184 ; hea- 
 then poets obtained an image 
 of baptism from Moses, 176, 
 180. 
 
 Cle^iIens Romanus : 
 fallen into sleep (figure), 95. 
 
 CoNANT, Dr. J. T. : 
 
 "plunge," not the meaning of 
 jia-TtZu ; no act present in any 
 baptizing can be the meaning 
 of /3arrr/Co which expresses the 
 condition resultant from the 
 
INDEX. 
 
 429 
 
 act whatever it maj'^ be, 62 ; 
 "submerged" (= condition) 
 here given as the meaning of 
 /iaTTTi^u, a very different word 
 from "plunge " (= a definite 
 act) ; the act in ship baptism 
 is sinking, tlie resultant con- 
 dition is submersion ; here Dr. 
 Conant reverses his transla- 
 tion in the sword baptism and 
 rejecting the act (which he 
 there accepted) he translates 
 by the condition (which he 
 there rejected), 63 ; the bap- 
 tism of the city of Jotapata 
 he translates "overwhelmed, " 
 neither "plunged," nor "sub- 
 merged," but a condition of 
 resistless ruin, 77; the bap- 
 tism of Jerusalem he trans- 
 lates "whelm," appealing 
 (wrongly) to water floods, 78- 
 82 ; the baptism of the intel- 
 lect by gluttony is translated 
 "whelm," but without an 
 appeal to water floods, 83 ; 
 aKpodupanec is translated by 
 " slightly intoxicated," while 
 ^aTTTicdyvai, (with which it 
 is contrasted) is translated 
 "whelm" instead of tJior- 
 oughly intoxicated (as the con- 
 trast demands), 86 ; baptism 
 by drunkenness, is inaccu- 
 rately translated '•'• i)lunged 
 into stupor and sleep ;" the 
 act was not "plunging" but 
 drinking, 92 ; on Josephus's 
 text, 110 ; baptism from the 
 dead by heifer ashes, 112. 
 CoNDiTiOiSr, Change of : 
 baptism, a thorough change of 
 condition by new character- 
 istic imparted, without dip- 
 ping, 136 ; changed condition 
 of soul by taking away sin. 
 
 146 ; fountain of Myrrha bap- 
 tized, changed as to condition 
 of its waters, 147 ; water, 
 wine, etc., baptized, changed 
 as to condition, without cover- 
 ing, 167; regeneration (= bap- 
 tism), change of condition, 
 out of darkness of sin into the 
 light of holiness, 187; baptism 
 by power of "clean" water, 
 198 ; of blood, 203 ; circum- 
 cision a baptism, 212 ; Christ's 
 death a baptism, 217 ; bap- 
 tized by heaviest sins (not a 
 dipping), 252 ; souls in a con- 
 dition of baptism by sin, 
 brought out by cross of Christ, 
 252 ; axe baptized in Jordan 
 = classic baptisms and a sym- 
 bol of soul baptism in sin, 253; 
 "flesh and body" baptized 
 from ceremonial defilement, 
 no proof (Carson) of a cover- 
 ing or of a general application 
 .of water, 283 ; sacrifice on the 
 altar changed as to condition 
 (purified), baptized, by water 
 poured upon it, 342 ; changed 
 (purified) condition, common 
 feature of these baptisms, 351. 
 ConfessiojSI", Baptism of : 
 baptisma confessionis puMicce, 
 et sanguinis (confession effects 
 the baptism, not baptism the 
 confession) ; compare jSd-na^ua 
 lieravoiac (where repentance 
 effects the baptism, not bap- 
 tism the repentance), also, 
 other cases of baptism with 
 the genitive, 217, 221 ; hajj- 
 tisma confessionis, a stum- 
 bling-block to the theory, 222 ; 
 lavacrum regenerationis, re- 
 generation is a washing (= 
 baptism), changes the condi- 
 tion of the soul, 278. 
 
430 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Contradictory Terms : 
 
 terms contradictory of iSawTl^o 
 express defilement {poUuo)^ 
 164 ; inquino, 239. 
 
 Cox, Dr. F. a. (England) : 
 says fiaTTTu expresses efiect (con- 
 dition of wetting), Carson 
 denies, 281 ; overwhelm ex- 
 presses effect, 286. 
 
 Criticisms of Classic Baptism: 
 the Christian Press, 21 ; the 
 National Baptist, 23 ; the 
 Examiner and Chronicle, 25 ; 
 the Eeligious Herald, 39 ; the 
 Baptist Quarterly, 48 ; criti- 
 cisms founded in misconcep- 
 tion, 51 ; " expresses condition 
 only," answer, 51 ; " one word 
 being used to translate, must 
 have one meaning," answer, 
 51; "assigns direct meaning 
 where should be figurative, " 
 answer, 52. 
 
 Cyprian : 
 the deluge a baptism (= purifi- 
 cation of the world), 148 ; 
 water baptized in order that 
 it might be able to baptize, 
 197 ; sprinkling = washing, 
 197 ; water cannot baptize 
 without the Spirit, 204 ; con- 
 fession, 217. 
 
 Cyril of Alexandria : 
 recognized a baptism by ' ' bare ' ' 
 water (not Christian bap- 
 tism) ; by the sprinkling of 
 heifer ashes (Judaic baptism); 
 and by the Holy Spirit (Chris- 
 tian baptism), 111. 
 
 Cyril of .Jerusalem : 
 sprinkled with hyssop = bap- 
 tism, 193 ; mode of using the 
 agency in baptism, unessen- 
 tial, 194 ; the power of bap- 
 tism, 196, 207; Elijah bap- 
 
 tized by the Jordan without 
 its waters touching him, 315. 
 Conjunction of Baptisms : 
 
 baptism k^ vSamg elg /uerdvoiaVj 
 and baptism ek Hvev/naTog elg 
 
 avayewTjaiv, consolidated into 
 one baptism constitutes Chris- 
 tian baptism, according to 
 Basil the Great and other Pa- 
 trists, 248 ; this is a funda- 
 mental element in the inter- 
 pretation of Patristic baptism, 
 and proves that, in their view, 
 the distinctive feature of 
 Christianity is "baptism by 
 the Spirit," that which pro- 
 ceeds out of (e/i) the Spirit, as 
 * its source, while John's bap- 
 tism proceeded out of (t/c) 
 water, as its source, and in 
 neither case was the Spirit or 
 the water the receiving ele- 
 ment, but in both cases occu- 
 pied positions of agency in 
 relation to their respective 
 baptisms, 250. 
 
 Definition of Baptism : 
 by Basil the Great (Patristic), 
 141 ; " three meanings," 249. 
 Deluge : 
 
 ' ' a figure of baptism, " by purg- 
 ing the world of sin, 148. 
 Development of Words : 
 unequal in different languages, 
 127; same word in kind in 
 one language' has not, neces- 
 sarily, its idea reproduced by 
 a like word in kind in another 
 language, 127 ; why '' merse " 
 introduced, whv discontinued, 
 128. 
 Dictionaries : 
 definitions of dip, immerse, by 
 Webster, Worcester, 26 ; the 
 Imperial Dictionary (London, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 431 
 
 Glasgow, and Dublin) defines 
 " Dip : To plunge or immerse, 
 for a moment or short time, 
 in water, or other liquid sub- 
 stance ; to put into a fluid 
 and withdraw." What is 
 common to the words is within 
 a fluid element ; what is dis- 
 tinctive is, 1. Dip puts its 
 object "within" by putting 
 it into; 2. It takes it out in a 
 moment or short time ; 3. It 
 influences its object but little 
 or none at all ; 1. Immerse 
 puts its object "within" in 
 any way, moving the object 
 or the fluid ; 2. It does not 
 take its object out, foreign 
 intervention may ; 3. It influ- 
 ences its object thoroughly, 
 usually by some penetrating 
 and pervading characteristic 
 or influence, 26, 27; Donne- 
 gan, 39. 
 DiDYMUS AliEXANPRINirS : 
 
 on the baptism of the waters, 
 134 ; the flood foretold purifi- 
 cation from sin, 149 ; " the 
 image of baptism" (sprink- 
 lings) saved Israel — "I will 
 sprinkle clean water" — 
 "sprinkle me with hyssop," 
 196 ; view of baptism in con- 
 trast with that of Carson, 
 199 ; the waters of the Red 
 Sea (securing safety for Is- 
 rael) were a type of salvation 
 by baptism, 292, 305. 
 Drunk, To make : 
 
 mpodupaKEQ (=^ slightly armed) 
 secures the meaning slightly 
 intoxicated^ and is contrasted 
 with jiaTzriadyvaL which secures 
 the meaning thoroughly in- 
 toxicated^ 84 ; common mean- 
 ing, 85 ; proof adduced, 85-91. 
 
 Eating and Drinking, Bap- 
 tism BY : 
 filled with drink and food, 83 ; 
 destitute of food, eaten up, 
 famine, 78-82. 
 
 'Eif : 
 
 with paTTTi^u) (in both literal and 
 figurative baptisms) must be 
 translated into; reasons, 95- 
 100 ; the idea which is ex- 
 pressed in figurative baptism, 
 as "into Moses," etc., 311- 
 314. 
 
 'Ek: 
 
 "out of:" the source or cause 
 of influence, etc. The bap- 
 tism e§ vSaroQ eif /usTavoiav ex- 
 hibits vSaroQ as the source of 
 the baptizing power (not 
 source out of which comes the 
 baptized object) , and /lerdvoiav 
 as the figurative receiving 
 element. The baptism sk ILvev- 
 
 jLiaTog e'lg avayevvrjGLv exhibits 
 
 RvEvjiaroQ as the source of the 
 baptizing power (not whence 
 the baptized object comes), 
 and avayevvrjOLv as the figura- 
 tive receiving element, 248 ; 
 it is not the baptized object 
 that comes " out of" the wa- 
 ter, or "out of" the Spirit. 
 It is Christ's power to bap- 
 tize which is in and comes out 
 of the Spirit. It is John's 
 power (that of a symbol) 
 which is in and comes out of 
 the water. The baptism of 
 Christ has a divine efficacy. 
 The baptism of John has a 
 symbol efficacy, 250 ; change 
 of ev to EK, 250. 
 
 'Ev 
 
 with, hy, are meanings legiti- 
 mately proceeding from the 
 radical meaning in. Christ 
 
432 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 came tv (in) nvevfian 'A-yiu, 
 therefore with, and therefore 
 acted hy the power of the 
 Holy Ghost ; John came ev 
 (in) Uve'vixaTL 'Wdov, therefore 
 with, therefore acted hy the 
 power belonging to the spirit 
 of Elias. Christ did not bap- 
 tize others in, but he himself 
 being "in" (Alford, Luke 
 3 : 1) baptized others ty the 
 power of the Holy Ghost. 
 John being "• in the spirit and 
 power of Elias " baptized in 
 conformity with such power, 
 that is kv vdari = sj'mbolly : 
 see Isaiah 4 : 4 (240), the Lord 
 is £v (in) nvEvfian Kplaeur and iv 
 (in) TTvevjiart Kavaeuc, and not 
 
 the washing; therefore He 
 will wash, cleanse, purify, 
 with the power and efficiency 
 which belong to a " spirit of 
 judgment and a spirit of 
 burning ;" this is proved by I 
 the comment of Basil, 248 ; i 
 such interpretation brings into 
 accord Iv idan, vSaTi, as used 
 in baptism ; h so used does 
 not indicate baptism in water, 
 since it is interchanged with 
 Ik and 6ln, 250 ; h ^ in which 
 (axe) their power was there- 
 fore hy which they cut, 252 ; 
 with, hy, 309 ; kv ru 'lopddvri 
 hy the Jordan, 316 ; h tQ 
 TTorauif) by the river, 321 ; va- 
 ried use of ev with ^anrii^u, 
 326. 
 
 Elijah aistd Elisha : 
 
 baptized kv ru 'iop6dvri hy the 
 Jordan, 315 ; without touch- 
 ing the water, 316-318. 
 Examiner and Cheonicle : 
 criticism of Classic Baptism, 
 25 ; " dictionaries interchange 
 
 dip, plunge, immerse " (inter- 
 changed because something 
 common, not because nothing 
 diverse), 26 ; not interchanged 
 where distinctive character- 
 istics are at issue, 26 ; objec- 
 tion to "the conclusion," 27; 
 misconception, 28-30 ; objec- 
 tion grounded in figurative 
 use, 31 ; defence, 32-36 ; the 
 inference from the common 
 use of jia-Tuu and immerse in 
 cases of sunken ships and 
 drowned men, therefore they 
 have a common applicability 
 to cases of influence, changing 
 condition without covering, is 
 a mistake, 37, 38. 
 ExPERniENTUM Crucis : 
 the baptism of the Qarmel altar 
 a crucial test of the theory, 
 330 ; its discussion shunned, 
 why ? 330 ; " any child can 
 understand pouring means 
 dipping'''' (Carson), 331. 
 
 Fairbairn, Principal P. : 
 Septuagint not a close transla- 
 tion, 155. 
 
 Field of Inquiry : 
 Jewish rites and historical facts 
 in Jewish history, interpreted 
 by Patristic writers as bap- 
 tisms and as types of Chris- 
 tian baptism, not explored, 19. 
 
 Figures of Baptism : 
 baptism of the waters by the 
 Holy Spirit, 135 ; baptism of 
 the fountain of Myrrh a by a 
 tree, 145 ; the deluge a bap- 
 tism, because a purification, 
 149; ISTaaman's healing, a 
 baptism, because a pviriflca- 
 tion, 160 ; Bethesda, figure of 
 baptism, 164 ; laver (washing 
 the feet at) figure of baptism, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 433 
 
 175 ; hand-washing, "image 
 of baptism," 176, 179 ; figure 
 baptisms themselves bond fide 
 baptisms, 180 ; hand-washing 
 baptism (on coucli) "image 
 of holy baptism, ' ' 184 ; sprink- 
 ling blood, type baptism, 187- 
 189 ; image of baptism (in 
 sprinklings) saved Israel, 196, 
 199; Baptist "figure bap- 
 tisms," 205 ; circumcision, a 
 typical seal (— baptism), 207 ; 
 circumcision being a real cere- 
 monial cleansing is typical of 
 the real spiritual cleansing by 
 the Holy Spirit, and not of 
 a symbol baptism by water, 
 208; "figura baptismatis " 
 (Ambrose), "typum baptis- 
 matis" (Ambrose), rvTvoc rf/g 
 hv Tu ^aTTTiafiaTc cuTTjpiag (Did- 
 ymUS Alex.), '^iuvavq rinzog 
 
 Xpiarov (Didymus Alex.), 290- 
 292, 301-305 ; Eed Sea bap- 
 tism figured Christian bap- 
 tism (Carson), so, Lake Myr- 
 rha, etc. , etc. , baptism is said 
 by Patrists to figure Christian 
 baptism, 293. 
 Figures of Speech : 
 
 Carson's treatise on, 33 ; error 
 in dipping or sinking a city in 
 water because its impending 
 ruin is likened to the innpend- 
 ing rirni of a sinking ship, 72 ; 
 Baptist "figure" irrational, 
 73; "swim away," "fly 
 away," "run away," proves 
 that no form of action was 
 intended to be expressed, 73 ; 
 sustained, picture figure with 
 fiaTTTlCu, rare, 71 (1, 2), 72-75 ; 
 envelopment no real existence 
 in figure baptism, only verbal 
 suggestion to reach result, 75 ; 
 just verbal statement of a 
 
 proper figurative baptism, 93 ; 
 "plunge" (Conant) no transla- 
 tion of ,3a7rr/;f,; at any time, but 
 the introduction, at best, of 
 an unstated accident, but here 
 has no existence even as an ac- 
 cident, 92 ; Baptist "figure" 
 extravagance, 93 ; old error 
 in turning secondary meaning 
 of jSdTTTu into figure, 94 ; figure 
 "torrents and floods," error, 
 94 ; interpretation of true 
 verbal figure, 96-99 ; why ver- 
 bal figure used V to express 
 the idea most specifically and 
 most powerfully, 99 ; figura- 
 tive phrase condensed into 
 pregnant word directly ex- 
 pressing the meaning of the 
 phrase, 114; no dipping in 
 the Patristic "figure of bap- 
 tisni,"133, 144,149; "I will 
 dijy you in vermilion" (Car- 
 son) (beating you with my 
 fists), a remarkable state- 
 ment ; better, " lest I dye you 
 a Sardian dye " = bloody your 
 face by blows, 279. 
 IST.B. Whenever /3a7rr/;'u or /3d-- 
 Tia/iia appear with an ideal ele- 
 merit, both verb and noup. disap- 
 pear on the phrase being restored 
 into the actual conception of the 
 phrase. They have no reality. 
 PouNDATioN, Classic ; 
 
 laid for after inquiry ; what Bap- 
 tist writers think of it, 20. 
 FRAKKLiisr, BENJA]!«mq" : 
 
 Academicians of Paris, 332. 
 Fuller, Richard, D.D. : 
 man on seashore or iu baptis- 
 tery baptized by water com- 
 ing over him ; the intellect is 
 baptized by food and (Jrink 
 coming upon it (Philo), are 
 these like physical bq,ptisms ? 
 
 28 
 
434 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 84 ; liTaaman's baptism, 160 
 Carmel altar baptism, 334 
 progress in meaning, 335 
 Naphthar baptism demands 
 farther progress, 351 ; Judith's 
 baptism, 358. 
 Ftjrst : 
 meaning of tabal, 157. 
 
 Gale : 
 error as to meaning of a He- 
 brew word, proof, 117, 118 ; 
 bound to make jiaTT-i^u 
 "dip," 191. 
 
 Genesareth, Lake of : 
 baptism in, drowning of crews 
 with their vessels, 64 (4). 
 
 Godwin, Professor : 
 means to purify ceremonially, 
 398. 
 
 Going into and coming out of: 
 bath, no proof of immersion, 
 dipping, or covering, 120. 
 
 Gregory IsTazianzen : 
 baptisms (=purification) by hys- 
 sop, blood of the lamb, and 
 sprinkled heifer ashes, 188 ; 
 the purifying waters a perfect 
 baptism, removing all sin, 195; 
 circimicision, type baptism, 
 215; altar baptized by three 
 pourings, 329 ; baptism by 
 thrice pouring, 329 ; interpre- 
 tation, 339. 
 
 Ground of " Figures of Chris- 
 tian Baptism:" 
 found in change of condition : 
 "the waters," because condi- 
 tion changed through a new 
 quahty imparted, 135 ; the 
 fountain of Myrrha, because 
 condition changed by remov- 
 ing bitter quality, 145 ; the 
 Deluge, because changed con- 
 dition of the world by remo- 
 val of sin, 149 ; Naaman, be- 
 
 cause condition changed by 
 removing leprosy, 163 ; Be- 
 thesda, because condition 
 changed by removing disease, 
 164. 
 
 Halley, President Egbert : 
 change of syntax proves second- 
 ary meaning, 126, 237. 
 
 Hamilton, Sir William : 
 the same word, in all lan- 
 guages, expresses a multitude 
 of thoughts, 75. 
 
 Herod, Sons of : 
 baptized, 71, 2 ; endured many 
 storms without baptism ; 
 storms, torrents, floods, not 
 "images of baptism," but of 
 distress, peril, 80 ; water- 
 floods from the Psalms, to 
 illustrate baptisms, confounds 
 things that difier, 80. 
 
 Hervetus : 
 
 defends Koir?] as a dining couch, 
 also, baptism, by hand- wash- 
 ing, upon it, 182. 
 
 Hilary : 
 blood-sprinkling, under the Law, ' 
 was a purification from sin 
 (= baptism), a sacrament of 
 the future blood-sprinkling of 
 the Lord, 196 ; "jjer mare el 
 j)er nuhem,'''' the agencies in 
 the Eed Sea baptism, 304 ; 
 ^'■haptismata sunt diuersa," 
 380. 
 
 HiPPOLYTUS : 
 
 baptism ev {in = during) that 
 night, 326. 
 Hudson, Head of St. Mary's 
 College : 
 critical editor of Josephus : on 
 the proper text of Jewish An- 
 tiquities, IV, 4, 108. 
 
 Immerse : 
 
 "is exactly equivalent to jSair- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 435 
 
 tO^u in not taking out what it 
 puts in " (I^ational Baptist), 
 25; then, it is not "exactly 
 equivalent" to dip^ which 
 does take out what it puts in, 
 25 ; interchangeable with fimt- 
 Ti^u as applied to sunken 
 ships, yet never wholly equiv- 
 alent ; neither equivalent nor 
 interchangeable in cases of 
 baptism by influential agen- 
 cies, without a covering ; in 
 such cases ISarrTii^o) has spe- 
 cial adaptation by inheriting 
 power to express communi- 
 cated quality through its de- 
 rivation from pdTTTO), to dye, 
 while immerse has no such 
 adaptation, original or ac- 
 quired, 37 ; diversity of syntax 
 farther proves the diverse 
 character of these words, 38 ; 
 maris gurgitihus fuisset IM- 
 MERSA, is this the Baptist 
 immerse ? 323. 
 
 In: 
 
 this Latin preposition has di- 
 verse meanings : inlacte (=in 
 sincerity) {with, hy), 274; in 
 qua unctione unctus est {with, 
 hy), 275 ; non in aqua, sed in 
 oleo baptizasse {with, by), 276 ; 
 m Hispania, place where := 
 in, 276 ; in virtute sua magna 
 et brachio suo excelso, either, 
 1. God being "in," therefore 
 hy, or 2, directly, hy, 290 ; in 
 nocte, in die, = during, 
 nightly, daily, 290; in columna 
 lucis, in columna nubis, as 
 applied to Moses, must be by, 
 290 ; in mari mersisti, mersed, 
 drowned (baptized ?) in the 
 sea, 291 ; in nube, in flatu, 
 = during, 308 ; in spiritu 
 sancto et aqua = h U. Kal 
 
 TTOTa/Lici, 321 ; salsi maris gur- 
 gitibus in-mersa, 323. 
 
 IKGHAM, Kev. E. (London) : 
 exposition of Carmel altar bap- 
 tism, failure, 337 ; relieved 
 from "drenching the dear 
 babes," 337, 339, 352. 
 
 Interpretation, Patristic : 
 Judaic baptisms aud figures of 
 Christian baptism, 131 ; the 
 right and the worth of such 
 interpretation, 131 ; their au- 
 thority beyond impeachment, 
 132 ; interpretations of Scrip- 
 ture questionable as to right 
 meaning, but as to their being 
 a real baptism or a resem- 
 blance to a baptism, they are 
 a court of last resort, 133 ; no 
 torrents, or floods, or dip- 
 pings, or coverings, appear as 
 the essential or as any ele- 
 ment in their " figures of 
 baptism ;" these are the resort 
 of the theorists when they 
 have nothing else to resort to, 
 133. 
 
 Intinctos : 
 does not express the act of bap- 
 tism, but the effect of the 
 "sanctified" waters, 138; 
 baptisms of influence ground- 
 ed not in act, but in effect 
 (Carson), 259 ; complete sub- 
 jection to the influence of a 
 liquid (Carson), 265 ; Carson 
 
 translates 'Eyu as fiaibu (3dfi/ia 
 I,apSi.av/-Kov I will dip you in 
 vermilion, which he says is a 
 figure of low degree, meaning 
 — "J will beat you with my 
 fists until you are covered with 
 blood.''"' It will be observed 
 that the "dip "in the figure 
 plays no jiart in the actual 
 transaction which underlies 
 
436 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 it, SO in the figurative state- 
 ment "drunkenness baptizes 
 into insensibility and sleep," 
 the meaning of which is 
 drunkenness induces the pro- 
 foundest stupor, baptize 
 makes no appearance in the 
 actual transaction, and far- 
 ther, in the figurative state- 
 ment, "Baptism of repent- 
 ance into the remission of 
 sins," which means repent- 
 ance secures the most absolute 
 remission of sins, in the actual 
 facts of the case, there is no 
 baptism to be seen. And this 
 is true of every such like figu- 
 rative statement. The friends 
 of the theory, however, are 
 for enacting the figure into 
 the fact. " Dip in vermilion " 
 has no actuality in drawing 
 blood by fisticuffs, and '■'■bap- 
 tism into the remission of 
 sins " has just as little actu- 
 ality in the forgiveness of the 
 truly penitent. Carson is 
 right, and because he is right 
 his cause is lost. 
 Isaiah (21 : 4) : 
 
 "Iniquity baptizes me; my 
 soul is put into terror," this 
 is a figurative statement, the 
 prosaic meaning' of which is 
 iniquity thoroughly terrifies me. 
 And in this resolution of the 
 figure, "baptize " (the throb- 
 bing heart of the figure) disap- 
 pears just like the " dip in ver- 
 milion." The sight, or the 
 suggestion, of balances held by 
 the hand of an offended Deity, 
 stirs up guilt, and the flaming 
 — TEKEL — baptizes the soul 
 into terror, 284 ; Conant, 284 ; 
 Carson, 286. 
 
 Jerome : 
 
 water washed (= baptized) that 
 it may wash (= baptize) spir- 
 itually, 140 ; saving baptism 
 by pouring out clean water, 
 196 ; a new heart and a new 
 spirit (= regeneration, bap- 
 tism) by pouring and sprink- 
 ling, 196 ; baptism = changed 
 condition, 198 ; baptized by 
 my blood, through the wash- 
 ing of regeneration, 278, 283. 
 
 Jerusalem, City of : 
 baptized by eating up its pro- 
 visions, V. e., by the influence 
 proceeding from famine, 78- 
 82 ; Carson's figurative ship, 
 82. 
 
 Jewish Writers : 
 
 thorough knowledge of (iaiTTit^u, 
 61 ; specialty of usage with- 
 out departure from the essen- 
 tial character of the word, 61. 
 
 John of Damascus : 
 baptism {6ia) through the cloud 
 and sea as agencies, 292, 304. 
 
 Jonah, Ship of : 
 on the point of being baptized, 
 64 ; dashing billows not bap- 
 tism, image of peril, 80. 
 
 Jordan, Baptism in, by: 
 Jews and their ships baptized 
 in the Jordan (= expansion 
 into lake Gennesareth), 63; are 
 baptized in, having fallen into,' 
 the Jordan, 252 ; Naaman 
 baptized (in) by the Jordan, 
 154; Elijah baptized (in) by 
 the Jordan, 315 ; Elisha bap- 
 tized (in) by the Jordan, 315 ; 
 Israel baptized (in) by the 
 Jordan, 320-328 ; the Jordan 
 '•'■immersed " in the Dead Sea, 
 323. 
 ]Sr.B. These baptisms in the 
 
 Jordan and by the _ Jordan illus- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 437 
 
 trate the saying of Ambrose, Non 
 unum est baptisma; mulin sunt gen- 
 era haptismatum : 1. We have the 
 baptism of Jews, together with 
 their sunken ships, lying on the 
 bottom of the Jordan at its expan- 
 sion into the lake Gennesareth ; 
 2. We have the baptism of an axe 
 (which has slipped from its helve) 
 lying at the bottom of the Jordan. 
 These drowned men, sunken ships, 
 and lost axe lying in the water on 
 the bottom of the Jordan, not 
 taken out, are honest physical 
 baptisms, such as aU other bap- 
 tisms where any object is said to 
 be baptized in the water of a river, 
 or a lake, or a sea. 
 
 Baptisms which are hy the wa- 
 ters of a river through a real di- 
 vine influence imparted to them 
 or attributed to them, are bap- 
 tisms of a very different character. 
 Among these are : 1. The baptism 
 of Naaman, whose condition was 
 thoroughly changed (= baj)tized) 
 by washing with the waters of 
 Jordan to which a miraculous 
 power was divinely imparted ; 2. 
 By the passing of Elijah and Eli- 
 sha between the divided waters of 
 the divided Jordan without touch- 
 ing them ; 3. By the second pas- 
 sage of Elisha through the same 
 divided waters in like manner ; 
 4. By the passing of all Israel, 
 under the leadership of Joshua, 
 through the arrested flowing of 
 the Jordan, and by it baptized 
 into Joshua. 
 
 There cannot be a greater piece 
 of unreason than to identify in 
 character these baptisms hy the 
 Jordan, without contact with a 
 drop of water, with those bap- 
 tisms m the water of the Jordan 
 
 where the baptized object lies 
 drowned, sunken, lost, on the bot- 
 tom of the river, A protest was 
 entered against such irration- 
 ality by Ambrose a thousand and 
 a half thousand years ago — JVbn 
 unum est haptisma; multa sunt 
 genera haptismatum. 
 
 JOSEPHFS : 
 
 sword baptized, 61 ; ship bap- 
 tized, ship on the point of 
 being baptized, ship baptized 
 by a billow, many ships bap- 
 tized, men baptized, 63 ; Aris- 
 tobulus baptized ( = drowned), 
 ship baptized, 66 ; Jerusalem 
 about to be baptized, Herod's 
 sons baptized, 71 ; city of Jo- 
 tapata baptized, city of Jeru- 
 salem baptized, 76 ; baptism 
 by drunkenness into insensi- 
 bility and sleep, 92 ; baptism 
 by sprinkling heifer ashes, 
 100 ; this baptism identified 
 with the diverse baptizings 
 (Heb. 9 : 9, 10), 387 ; John's 
 baptism, discrimination be- 
 tween baptism of the soul and 
 baptism of the body, 389 ; 
 water in religious baptism is 
 agency, not receiving element, 
 390. 
 JosHTJA, Baptism into : 
 all our fathers were baptized 
 into Joshua — Jesus, 321 ; hy 
 the Holy Spirit and water, 
 321 ; all our fathers were bap- 
 tized into Moses, 321 ; by the 
 cloud and by the sea, 321 ; all 
 were baptized into Joshua — 
 Jesus, by the Jordan, 321 ; all 
 passed over through the Jor- 
 dan, and all were baptized 
 into Joshua — Jesus by the 
 spirit and the river, 321 ; 
 Joshua— Jesus was a type of 
 
438 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Jesus Christ, 321; baptism 
 into Moses hy the cloud and 
 the sea, bitter ; baptism into 
 Joshua — Jesus by a sweet and 
 potable river, better, 321 ; by 
 baptism into Jesus, we know 
 that the living God is in us, 
 322 ; the defilement of Egypt 
 taken away in the day of bap- 
 tism iuio Joshua — Jesus, when 
 Joshua — Jesus thoroughly 
 purified the children of Israel, 
 322. 
 N.B. 1, The proof is absolute 
 that the baptism is declared by 
 Origen (one of the most competent 
 G-reek scholars that ever lived) to be 
 "into Joshua" as a type of Jesus 
 as a Sayiour ; as he also declares 
 that the miraculous attestation to 
 the leadership of Moses at the Red 
 Sea effected a baptism ' ' into Mo- 
 ses " as a type of Christ as Lord ; 
 and the proof is no less absolute 
 that inspiration teaches that the 
 baptism of Christianity is "into 
 the Lord Jesus " as Lord and Sa- 
 viour of his people ; 
 
 2. The significance of these bap- 
 tisms into the type Moses, and the 
 type Joshua, and the antit3'^pe 
 Lord Jesus, is of absolute clear- 
 ness, namely, a thorough change 
 of condition by full subjection to 
 Moses, to Joshua, to the Lord 
 Jesus ; 
 
 3. These baptisms, of verbal 
 form, expressed nothing in their 
 idea unreal or doubtful, but abso- 
 lute reahties, actual subjection to 
 Moses, to Joshua, to the Lord 
 Jesus, in their several distinctive 
 characters and claims ; 
 
 4. The realities expressed under 
 the figurative forms — " baptism 
 into Moses," "baptism into 
 
 Joshua," — had, in neither case, 
 any divinely appointed symbol 
 counterpart. They were in them- 
 selves expressive of profound re- 
 alities, yet not ultimate realities ; 
 they were great realities constitut- 
 ing types of a greater reality. It 
 was, therefore, unmeet that types 
 should have symbols attached to 
 them ; but when the type bap- 
 tisms "into Moses," "into Josh- 
 ua," merged into the antitype 
 baptism — "into the Lord Jesus," 
 then, that divine wisdom which 
 had vouchsafed to human infir- 
 mity the type baptisms "into 
 Moses," "into Joshua," by mira- 
 cles wrought at the Red Sea, and 
 at the Jordan, preceding the great 
 antit3q3e baptism, also gave to hu- 
 man infirmitj^ a S3^mbol of that 
 antitype baptism of all redeemed 
 souls into the Lord Jesus by the 
 Holy Ghost (purifying them by his 
 atoning blood and making them 
 subject to his divine Lordship), 
 which should endure through all 
 succeeding ages, and receive a visi- 
 ble exhibition in the symbol of 
 pure water ; 
 
 5. The evidence is no less abso- 
 lute, that when sir and h appear 
 in declaring the same baptism, elg 
 announces the receiving element 
 (whether physical or ideal), and kv 
 announces the agency, whatever 
 may be its character. These po- 
 sitions are necessities in the cases 
 before us, where elc stands in ex- 
 clusive relations with Joshua and 
 Moses, which present no difficul- 
 ties in becoming ideal receiving 
 elements, while the exigency of 
 the passage (in the sentiment 
 which it requires) makes impera- 
 tive demand for such position. In 
 
INDEX. 
 
 439 
 
 like manner, the relations of h 
 with "the Holy Spirit," "Jor- 
 dan," "Eiver," excludes inness 
 and requires agency ; becavise, by 
 universal admission, there was, in 
 fact, no inness of Israel within the 
 Holy Spirit, or the water of the 
 Jordan, while the Holy Spirit, and 
 the miraculously arrested flowing 
 of the one part of the river and 
 the continued down-flowing of the 
 other part, were competent agen- 
 cies to baptize into (make subject 
 unto) Joshua, the newly appointed 
 type Leader of Israel. 
 JoTAPATA, City of : 
 baptized hy (not in) the depar- 
 ture of Josephus (= by the 
 influence of), as by the influ- 
 ence of (not in) wine, drug, 
 76-78 ; Oonant's explanation 
 of this baptism by a reference 
 to the water floods of David, 
 and Job, a mistake ; neither 
 David, nor Job, is said to be, 
 or in fact was, baptized by 
 them, 79, 81. 
 Judith, Baptism of : 
 
 "in {kv place where) the camp," 
 352 ; no evidence for dipping 
 or immersing, 354-375 ; Car- 
 son's, ifuller'SjConant's views 
 examined, 354-375 ; efia-nTiCero 
 £1', 326, 355 ; ett'i -^g TriryfiQ. 357- 
 363; "the word," 364^372; 
 7repz«:?i,7<w, Carson's error here 
 similar to that as to [iaTTTi^u^ 
 372-374 ; limited washing be- 
 fore prayer, 374. 
 JusTiK Martyr : 
 circumcision a baptism, 208 ; a 
 typical seal (baptism), (G-reg- 
 ory l!^azianzen), 207 ; con- 
 versely, baptism a circumcis- 
 ion (Cyril), 207 ; expounds the 
 axe baptism, 257 ; we so bap- 
 
 tized, "by heaviest sins," 
 262 ; Carson's translation, 
 262 ; baptize the soul from 
 anger, 278. 
 
 a dining couch, baptism upon, 
 181-184. 
 
 Lavo: 
 
 effects religious purification, 
 cleansing, washing, without 
 regard to the extent of appli- 
 cation to the body — loti san- 
 guinenostro — haptisma sangui- 
 nis pur iores reddat, 197 ; "the 
 sprinkling of salutary wa- 
 ter, ' ' and ' ' the salutary wash- 
 ing," are equivalent phrases 
 so far as the washing, cleans- 
 ing, purification, baptism, is 
 concerned ; as martyr blood 
 "washes," so the sprinkUng 
 of salutary water " washes ;" 
 neither washes physically, 
 both wash religiously, 197 ; 
 IqU used by Origen of mar- 
 tyrs, 200 ; water "washes" 
 the soul, being first "wash- 
 ed" by the Spirit; does 
 "wash" here mean cleanse, 
 purify, or not ? 140 ; water is 
 baptized (= washed, purified), 
 that it may baptize (== wash, 
 purify), 204 ; water is sancti- 
 fied (=: baptized, washed, 
 cleansed, purified) that it may 
 sanctify (= baptize, wash, 
 cleanse,' purify), 134 ; water 
 is cleansed {mundo), jpurified 
 [abluo), that it may cleanse, 
 purify, have the power to bap- 
 tize [jus hcqytismatis), 141 ;./ws, 
 vis, lYvvajUQ, to wash, to cleanse, 
 to baptize (irrespective of ex- 
 tent of application, or quan- 
 
440 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 tity), used, 200 ; Carson errs 
 in carrying into the religious 
 sphere tlie physical idea of a 
 washing as a process to be 
 performed, which can only be 
 operative so far as the cleans- 
 ing element is applied ; this is 
 not the idea of a religious 
 washing (= cleansing, purifi- 
 cation) ; its basis is essentially 
 different, 200-205. 
 
 AovTpov : 
 not a dipping, nor an immers- 
 ing, nor necessarily a cover- 
 ing, 115 ; in heathen rehgious 
 rites used for drinTc offerings^ 
 libations; in Christianity it 
 is used to express spiritual 
 cleansing without regard to 
 the extent or manner of using 
 the cleansing element or 
 agency ; neither Philo, Jose- 
 phus, Cyril, nor Scripture 
 speaks of a dipping, or a physi- 
 cal washing, as entering into 
 the purification by heifer 
 ashes ; the washing in J^um- 
 bers 19 : 19 was not by heifer 
 ashes ; water, Auvrpu refers to 
 the baptism (= purification) 
 by ashes, to which the baptism 
 was exclusively due (Heb. 9 : 
 13, 14), 115, 116 ; a washing 
 not entering into the ashes 
 purification (that was by 
 sprinkling), it is sought to be 
 introduced, 117 ; /.ov-pov may 
 be by sprinkling, 125, 177, 
 178 ; not a bath, 194 ; lov-p6v 
 of repentance and knowledge, 
 277, 282 ; cleansing, 332. 
 
 AovTTjp : 
 
 a basin, standing by which 
 Greeks bathed, 121 ; not the 
 symbol of dipping, 178. 
 
 Kovu : 
 does not require the immersion, 
 or the complete covering, of 
 the body, 119, 120 ; to cleanse 
 morally, by any appropriate 
 moral agency, "learning to 
 do well," 124 ; sprinkling the 
 blood of Christ represents the 
 washing (= cleansing) of the 
 soul from sin, 125 ; washing 
 may be by sprinkling (Car- 
 son, Calvin), 177 ; martyrs 
 "washed " by their own blood, 
 177 ; " sprinkling a few drops 
 a purification, but not a 'kov- 
 Tpov^^ (Carson), mistakes the 
 religious use of the word, 177 ; 
 another error of Carson, 383. 
 
 LoWESTTHAL, KeY. MR. : 
 
 Hindoo bathing at a river by 
 pouring water over the body 
 from a small vessel, 122. 
 
 Mark 7 : 2, 3 : 
 illustrated by Hervetus and 
 Clement, hand-washing (= 
 baptism) on a couch ; Struzius 
 and Morell also say koIttj 
 means a dining couch, 182. 
 
 Matthtes : 
 Baptism Expositio ; ' ' any lustra- 
 tions whatever may be called 
 baptisms," 382. 
 
 MeAISTIKG, EADICAIi : 
 
 of /3a7rrifw, not different in Jew- 
 ish compared with Classical 
 writers ; appears in new sphere 
 with new applications, hence 
 special differences, 20 ; "form 
 of an act" (Baptist), condi- 
 tion without limit of influence, 
 specialty of condition being 
 determined by adjunct, 102, 
 103 ; Baptist confusion, 104. 
 Merse, To : 
 
 why used throughout in Classic 
 
INDEX. 
 
 441 
 
 Baptism ? why discontinued 
 in Judaic Baptism ? 128. 
 
 Mebsus : 
 ferrum mersum est in flumine, 
 252 ; witlaout self-recovery, or 
 taking out ante haptismum de- 
 mergitur, 253 ; mersos in cali- 
 gine, in peccato, in blasplie- 
 mia, in dementia ; mersa in 
 errors ; mergo, mersus, inter- 
 changed with (iar:TiC,u in some 
 fields of use, not in all ; mergo 
 in metaphorical use expresses 
 under the power of as sur- 
 rounded, encompassed ; /Jott- 
 rll^u includes the idea of pene- 
 tration, pervading, and thus 
 assimilating to the encom- 
 passing or otherwise acting 
 and controlling agency, 266; 
 in mari mersisti sicut ^gyp- 
 tum plumbum, ^gyptus mer- 
 gitur = ^gyptus interiit, 
 Pharaohnem necavit, 290, 
 291 ; maris gurgitibus fuisset 
 immersa, 323. 
 
 Metaphor : 
 what is it ? 52 ; metaphorically 
 baptized object not put under 
 water, 53 ; metaphorical bap- 
 tisms, indefinitely long, not 
 dippings, 53 ; in metaphorical 
 use, a resemblance between 
 something in the object not 
 covered, and something in the 
 object covered; therefore, the 
 resemblance cannot be in the 
 covering, 54 ; eifect common 
 to metaphor and literality, 
 and is the basis of the appli- 
 cation of the common term, 
 54 ; bold metaphors by com- 
 mon and long use become 
 proper terms, 55 ; custom 
 makes metaphorical meaning 
 as well understood as the lit- 
 
 eral, 55 ; ideas suggested by 
 metaphor without the inter- 
 vention of an image, 55 ; pan- 
 tll,u and immerse not equiva- 
 lent in metaphor, 55; "con- 
 clusion" of Classic Baptism 
 too broad, answer, 56. 
 
 MiGNE, Abbe : 
 latest Editor of Patristic writ- 
 ings, 58. 
 Mode of Baptism : 
 one in which dipping impossible, 
 the mode, in fact, moving 
 above and resting upon, 137 ; 
 "to speak of mode in baptism 
 absurd," error, 380. 
 
 Morell, T. (Scotland) : 
 
 Lexicon Prosodaicum ; kHvt) = 
 KdiTTj, a dining couch, 182. 
 
 Moses, Baptism into : 
 
 " all baptized into Moses by {ev) 
 the cloud and by (ey) the sea," 
 1 Cor. 10 : 2 ; the cloud and 
 the sea ' 'induced faith through 
 amazement, a type of future 
 grace," 292; "by means of 
 {Sia) the sea and the cloud," 
 292 ; Moses was a type of 
 Christ, 292. 
 
 Moses, Baptisms of : 
 from a dead body, 112 ; the 
 many baptisms of Moses in- 
 cluded in the one baptism 
 of Christ, 169, 172 ; baptized 
 (== purified, not dipped) from 
 the bed, 172 ; by sprinkling, 
 187 ; baptized upon the couch, 
 176-184. 
 
 Mtjndo : 
 
 synonym with [3aTrri^o, 163, 164. 
 Myrrha, Pool of : 
 change of its condition, a bap- 
 tism, and a figure of Christian 
 baptism, 143. 
 
442 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 JSTAAMAisr, Healing of : 
 
 a thorough and miraculous 
 change of condition, 154 ; Car- 
 son's remarkable points exam- 
 ined, 154-158; Dr. Fuller's 
 inaccuracies indicated, 160- 
 162 ; Jewish translators, ex- 
 press tlwrough change of con- 
 dition^ 163 ; Patristic view, 
 thorough change of condition, 
 163 ; the effect, and not the 
 mode, of using the water indi- 
 cated by the Septuagint and 
 Patristic writers, 164. 
 
 Kaphthar ; 
 
 " simple water " {aq^a simplex) 
 cannot baptize ; an absurd 
 statement if immersion is bap- 
 tism, 140; "Naphthar" (the 
 altar fire changed into water) 
 poured and sprinkled upon the 
 sacrifice, wood, and altar bap- 
 tized (= purified) them, kind- 
 ling the wood, and consuming 
 the sacrifice, 345, 346 ; jSTaph- 
 thar, in common with wine, 
 "sanctified water," and heif- 
 er ashes, had power ("vis 
 baptismatis ") to baptize (= 
 purify) by sprinkling, or in 
 any way which would develop 
 that "power," 350; because 
 of this "power " to purify (= 
 baptize) it was called Naph- 
 thar (= Kadapf.Gfidr), a cleans- 
 ing, 345 ; for like reason "sal- 
 utary water " was called /3d7r- 
 Tia/j.a, purification, 350. 
 
 New Testament Baptizestgs : 
 diverse baptizings (Heb, 9 : 9^ 
 10), 379; Patrists famihar 
 with diverse baptisms, 380 ; 
 Paul and Patrist call the puri- 
 fying rites of the Jews "bap- 
 tizings" (= purifyings), and 
 Matthies says, "qusevis lus- 
 
 trationes dici possint baptis- 
 mi," 382. 
 N. B. In all these cases the uni- 
 versally present and ruling element 
 is a thorough change of condition. 
 ISTouRKY, Alex. D. Le : 
 Jewish ciistom to be baptized 
 (tingerentur) upon the dining 
 couch, image of our holy bap- 
 tism, 184, 
 
 Objections : 
 objections against Classic Bap- 
 tism all considered, 58 ; the 
 difference between a transitory 
 act, passing into and out of 
 a fluid [dip), and a condition, 
 without limit of act, time, or 
 influence, within a fluid, is the- 
 difference between absolute 
 extremes, 58. 
 
 One, Baptism is not : 
 so Hilary affirms, "Baptismata 
 sunt diversa;" so Ambrose 
 affirms, "Multa sunt genera 
 baptismatum ;" so Basil the 
 Great affirms, "As the Holy 
 Spirit differs from water, so 
 much does the baptism by the 
 Holy Spirit differ from the 
 baptism by water — there is 
 diversity between the baptism 
 of Moses and the baptism of 
 John — why compare baptisms 
 which have nothing in com- 
 mon but the name, while the 
 difference in things is as great 
 as between a dream and the 
 truth;" so Chrysostom affirms, 
 " The Jews could not be saved 
 by diverse baptisms ;" so Jus- 
 tin Martyr affirmed, "the 
 Law released from blame by 
 diverse kinds of baptisms ;" 
 these writers repudiate the 
 theory, that baptism as bap- 
 
INDEX. 
 
 443 
 
 tistn is of necessity "one," 
 because " baptism is mode and 
 nothing but mode," 380-382 ; 
 Ambrose denies most express- 
 ly that oneness inlieres in bap- 
 tism — " Non unum est haptis- 
 ma,'>^ 222 ; but wliile so de- 
 nying the postulate of the 
 theory, he immediately affirms, 
 ' ' icnum est quod tradit Ecde- 
 sm,"222 ; secutum eratverum 
 illud unum, 143. 
 N. B. Baptism has endless di- 
 versities, considered generically ; 
 Christianity has "one baptism," 
 considered specifically. 
 
 In relation to this "one bap- 
 tism" Baptists have fallen into 
 the sad mistake of substituting 
 baptism by water for baptism by 
 the Holy Ghost, the difierence be- 
 tween which is , as Basil says, ' ' as 
 great as the difference between the 
 Holy Ghost and water, or between 
 the truth and a dream," They 
 further mistake in supposing that 
 a dipping into simple water is the 
 baptism which. pairTLi^u demands, 
 while it never did acknowledge it 
 to be any baptism at all ; but de- 
 clares it to be as far removed from 
 its true demand as a dream is from 
 the truth. They farther mistake 
 in supposing that this dream-bap- 
 tism (which has no existence in 
 fact) is the commanded " one bap- 
 tism." 
 
 The "one baptism" of Chris- 
 tianity is the baptism "into the 
 Lord Jesus," the crucified Ee- 
 deemer, "the Lamb of God that 
 taketh away the sin of the world, " 
 effected by the Holy Ghost, which 
 baptism (thoroughly changing the 
 condition of the soul) is symbolly 
 exhibited and illustrated by pour- 
 
 ing or sprinkling pure water upon 
 the body, while announcing ver- 
 bally the real baptism by the Holy 
 Ghost, which is symbolized by 
 the water. The substitution of a 
 dipping into " simple " water for 
 this baptism by the Holy Ghost 
 into Christ, and its symbolization 
 by pure water, is destitute of all 
 authority from the Greek word, 
 from the teachings of the Church 
 (even where covering in "salu- 
 tary" water was practiced), as 
 well as from the Holy Scriptures, 
 which give no sanction to it by 
 word or deed. 
 
 Any one who, after examining 
 the baptisms of Greek writers, 
 and Jewish writers, and Patristic 
 writers, shall say: /JaTrr/i^w demands 
 "one baptism," and that one bap- 
 tism is a dipping into water, naay 
 have strong claims on the kind 
 offices of some medical school, but 
 cannot be a candidate for honors 
 in any exegetical school. 
 
 The theory says baptism is one, 
 225. 
 
 Okgastic Phrase : 
 a combination of words consti- 
 tuting by their relation a unity 
 of idea, and which cannot be 
 interpreted disjunctly, but 
 must be accepted in their 
 unity of relation, 45. 
 Obigen : 
 meaning of ?iovTp6v, 119 ; many 
 sacrifices in type and figure, 
 but one perfect sacrifice — 
 Christ (so, "multa sunt gen- 
 era baptismatum sed unum 
 baptisma clamat Apostolus," 
 143), 180 ; martyrs washed by 
 their own blood, baptism of 
 blood, 197 ; the Great Bap- 
 tizer is the Lord Jesus Christ, 
 
444 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 he baptizes (= purifies) sins 
 by the sword and by fire, 224; 
 dipping baptism impossible, 
 234-239; Elijah baptized (= 
 purified) by passing through 
 the divided Jordan without 
 touching its waters, 315 ; this 
 baptism was a thorough 
 change of condition fitting 
 for heaven, 317 ; no allusion 
 to dipping or water covering, 
 319 ; harmony with classic 
 teaching, 320 ; altar baptized 
 by pouring, 328 ; interpreta- 
 tion, 338. 
 Overwhelm, To : 
 abundantly used where no cov- 
 ering in fact, expressing efiect, 
 vaguely used by Conant, 85, 
 86; "the classical meaning 
 of (ia7TTi:.u is in no instance 
 overwhelm '>'> (Carson), 90; no 
 bond of union between the 
 meanings — "dip " and " over- 
 whelm, "285; may translate 
 baptize, why ? 285 ; called on 
 to express the baptism of 
 Isaiah 21 : 4, 285. 
 Ovid: 
 fountain of Salmacis possessed 
 of peculiar quality ("vis") 
 expressed by tingo^ effected by 
 a drug (medicamen) put into 
 it, communicated this quality 
 by drinking, 148 ; analogy 
 with the fountain Myrrha, 
 and generally with the waters 
 of baptism, to which a quality 
 (vis, 6vvaiur) was, or was sup- 
 posed to be, imparted, with 
 "power" to impart again, 
 143. 
 K. B. — This use of lingo to ex- 
 press neither to dip nor to dye, but 
 the communication of a quality 
 without color, changing the con- 
 
 dition of the fountain and ena- 
 bling it to effect a like change (in 
 conformity with this new quality), 
 is entirely analogous to the exten- 
 sion of jia-aTu to dye, to express, 
 through lianrlCu, a chaDge of con- 
 dition by quality without color, 
 and also the baptizing of water 
 with a new quality, and so ena- 
 bling it to baptize in conformity 
 with such quality. 
 
 Passover : 
 
 sprinkled blood upon the door- 
 posts a type baptism and 
 proof that infants should be 
 baptized, 216. 
 Patrists : 
 
 call Jewish rites baptisms, 19 ; 
 quotations from Paris edition, 
 by the Abbe Migne, 58 ; quo- 
 tations limited to the first 
 four centuries and writers ex- 
 tending into the fifth century, 
 58. 
 Philo : 
 ashes put into water communi- 
 cate to it a new qualit}'^, so as 
 to be able, when sprinkled 
 uj)on the ceremonially defiled, 
 to change their condition, to 
 purify, to baptize, 101 ; bap- 
 tism of the intellect, by glut- 
 tony, 76 ; drunken baptism, 
 84 ; conclusive proof that liair- 
 Ti^u has the direct meaning, 
 to make drunk, 85-88. 
 Plestt: 
 in, with the meaning during^ 
 '•'■in nube, neque in flatu, ca- 
 dunt rores," 308. 
 Plutarch : 
 j Greek bathing not by immer- 
 i sion, 121. 
 
 i Pregnant "Word : 
 I, absorbs a phrase of which it was 
 
INDEX. 
 
 445 
 
 a member, and expresses, by 
 itself, the idea of the entire 
 phrase, 114 ; ^anT'iC,u so used 
 by classics, Jews, and Chris- 
 tians, 398-400. 
 
 Quaker, The : 
 and the cursing sailor, 23. 
 
 Ebligious Herald : 
 criticism of Classic Baptism, 39; 
 declines to discuss the dis- 
 criminating meaning of ^a^a- 
 Ti^u, 39 ; jiaiiTL^u a modal 
 term, specific act not effect, 
 same as jianru to dip, 39; Don- 
 negan quoted ; Herald nap- 
 ping. Lexicons not final arbi- 
 ters, not inimical to Classic 
 baptism, are to the theory, 40 ; 
 slipping away from the Her- 
 ald definition, 41 ; no new 
 meaning in figure, yet in fifty- 
 one out of sixty-four cases of 
 figurative use given by Co- 
 nant, he translates whelm 
 while in one only out of eighty- 
 six cases of physical use he 
 translates whelm (see Classic 
 Baptism, 302), 41 ; error in 
 using immerse, 42 ; reference 
 or resemblance does not make 
 figurative use the same as 
 physical, 43 ; immersed in 
 books, in politics, 44 ; rela- 
 tions of words affect mean- 
 ing, 45 ; organic phrases to 
 be interpreted as a unity, 
 not by disjunct words, 46 ; 
 all baptisms are thorough 
 changes of condition, all thor- 
 ough changes of condition are 
 not baptisms, 47; concessions: 
 1, if a condition of purifica- 
 tion be baptism, then baptism 
 may be by sprinkling ; 2, bap- 
 
 tism expressed figuratively by 
 strong controlling influence ; 
 3, Greeks called drunkenness 
 baptism, 47 ; these conces- 
 sions cover all C. B. was writ- 
 ten to establish, 48. 
 
 EeLIGIOUS MEANING OF Ba7VTi(jfj.a: 
 
 definition by Basil, 141 ; three 
 meanings, 250 ; first occurs 
 in K. T., and always in spir- 
 itual relations. See Johan- 
 nic Baptism, 140-145. 
 Ked Sea Baptism : 
 
 "dry" baptism of the theory 
 unheard of until after the 
 lapse of 3000 years, 293 ; 
 Pentecost and Eed Sea dry 
 baptism, 294 ; attesting faith 
 (!) in Moses, 295 ; figure bur- 
 ial and resurrection (!) 296 ; 
 construction of the baptist- 
 ery, 296-299 ; theory repudi- 
 ates theory, 300 ; Patristic 
 interpretation, 301-304 ; no 
 hint at a dipping, or burial, 
 or resurrection, 305 ; inspired 
 interpretation, 305 ; transla- 
 tion of ev, 307, 308 ; transla- 
 tion of ek, 309-311 ; meaning 
 of "baptized into Moses," 
 311-313; subjection to the 
 type Head of Israel, Moses 
 the prophet, foreshadowing 
 subjection to the antitype 
 Head of his redeemed, 
 Christ the Lord, 314. 
 Eesults : 
 
 The principle in using ^aTrr/fo) 
 by Jew and Greek the same, 
 391 ; no dipping in Jewish 
 use ; baiDtism without limit of 
 time ; verbal figure {into ideal 
 element) expresses the source 
 and nature of influence ; /Jctt- 
 TLi^u used absolutely to express 
 well-known baptism = cere- 
 
446 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 monial purification, Jewish 
 religious baptisms by sprink- 
 ling, 391-396. 
 Keview ; 
 of Carson's argument on ITaa- 
 man's baptism, 155 ; of Ful- 
 ler's, 160. 
 
 SAjSTO: 
 synonym with jia~-iC,o)^ 143, 163, 
 164. 
 Septuagint : 
 uses (3aTrri^u to translate tdbal, 
 introducing the idea of cleans- 
 ing^ purifying (like the Syriac) 
 from the command "to wash, " 
 154, 155 ; not a close transla- 
 tion (Fairbairn), 155 ; Eng- 
 lish Bible not translation of 
 Septuagint (Carson), 155 ; 
 Fuller, 160 ; translates ad 
 sensum, 284, 288. 
 Salmacis, FouNTAnsr of : 
 had power to change sex (Quis- 
 quis in hos fontes vir venerit, 
 exeat semivir, Ovid TV, 12, 
 115) by entering into or drink- 
 ing of (Lempriere, Art. Sal- 
 macis), 148. 
 K.B. The virtue ("vis"), as- 
 cribed to this and other waters, 
 which was parted with by drink- 
 ing and otherwise, changing the 
 condition of those using them in 
 conformity with the several char- 
 acteristics, is of great value as 
 illustrating the use of fluids to 
 change condition (= baptize) by 
 drinking (wine, opiate, fountain 
 of Silenus), or the changed (bap- 
 tized) condition of fluids, by put- 
 ting into them a fluid (water in- 
 to wine), or any "medicamen," 
 '■'■ cfiapimKov,''^ as appears in Greek 
 baptisms ; and by the addition of 
 red heifer ashes, and blood, to 
 
 water in Jewish baptisms, and by 
 the (supposed) addition of the Holy 
 Spirit to the water of Patristic 
 baptisms, by which a qualitas, vir- 
 tus, vis, dvvaiMc, was communicated 
 to the water, and on which its 
 power to baptize was absolutely 
 dependent. 
 
 Beside the quality attributed to 
 the fountain Salmacis, 0\dd (XV, 
 320-330) speaks of Ethiopian wa- 
 ters which when drunk induced a 
 profound stupor (like the stupefy- 
 ing baptism by a drug, (papuuKu), 
 Classic Baptism, p. 318) ; also, 
 of the fountain Clitorius, which 
 changed the condition as to taste 
 for wine-drinking — Quicunque 
 sitim de fonte levarit vina fugit ; 
 seu vis est in aqua, calido contra- 
 riavino, sive . . . purgamina mentis 
 in illas misit aquas odiumque meri 
 permansit in undis : this is the 
 opposite effect from that induced 
 by drinking from the fountain of 
 Silenus ; there is, however, other 
 waters (the river Lyncestius) to 
 supply its place : 
 
 Huic fluit effectu dispar Lyncestius amnis, 
 Quern quicunque parum moderate guttere 
 
 traxit ; 
 Haud aliter titubat, quam si mera Tina 
 
 bibisset. 
 
 The effect of using these waters 
 is a thorough change of condition 
 in accordance with the character- 
 istic and the waters, and is iden- 
 tical with the baptism declared to 
 be effected by drinking of the 
 fountain of Silenus, of wine, of 
 drugged wine, etc. ; as, also, with 
 the baptism of the waters of Lake 
 Myrrha, and of Bethesda (shown 
 in their own changed condition 
 and power to change that of others) 
 in Jewish history ; as, also, with 
 
INDEX. 
 
 447 
 
 the baptism of water (that ifc 
 might be able to baptize) among 
 the Patrists. 
 
 Changes in the meaning of words 
 and in their syntax, are also shown 
 to be the same. Thus, in the case 
 of the Homeric lake, we have — 
 'E/3a7rrero 6' al/uaTi Alfivr/^ the lake 
 was dyed with blood. 
 
 Gale, insisting that (ianru could 
 mean nothing but dip, and disre- 
 garding the syntax with alfian, 
 translated this — "the lake was 
 dipped into the blood;" but Car- 
 son, moved by the irrationalism of 
 such a translation, came out fore- 
 most, among Baptists, to accept a 
 new meaning for fid-nru (= to dye), 
 and translated, "The lake was 
 dyed with blood." Mark the 
 change in the prepositions with 
 the change in the verbs. Ovid 
 says (lY, 12, 117) : Fecit, et in- 
 certo fontem medicamine tinxit. 
 
 The syntax corresponds with 
 that of the Greek passage, and the 
 verb {tinxit) is, also, correspondent 
 with the Greek verb. Gale should 
 translate: "He dipped the foun- 
 tain into a transforming drug ;" 
 but all without a theory to sup- 
 port will be obedient to the syntax, 
 and recognize another meaning in 
 " tinxit " than cZip. And here it 
 is of special importance to recog- 
 nize, that the meaning to dye, 
 cannot (as in the Greek passage) 
 be substituted for "dip " (tinxit) ; 
 there is no coloring of the fountain ; 
 we must therefore seek a meaning 
 beyond "to dye" ( = to change 
 condition by coloring), and accept 
 a meaning in which condition is 
 changed by a quality communi- 
 cated without color. " The foun- 
 tain was tinctured by (not ' dijpped 
 
 into ' nor ' dyed by ') a trans- 
 forming drug." And this brings 
 us face to face with fia-nrli^u and its 
 derivation from (ia-rrru to fulfil that 
 office here performed by ' ' tinctus, ' ' 
 viz., to express a thorough change 
 of condition by any quality with- 
 out coloring. And, in accordance 
 with this extension of the mean- 
 ing of (icLTTTU (through iSa-nrriCo)) to 
 
 express a change of condition by 
 quality imparted, without color, 
 we have the agency conjoined with 
 this verb without a preposition. 
 
 These fluids (lake, and fountain, 
 and river baptisms) changing con- 
 dition by drinking, afford new and 
 conclusive testimony, that /3a7rric,'« 
 has a meaning which is utterly 
 divorced from all water covering, 
 as well as dipping. 
 
 SiLENTJS, FOUKTAIK OF : 
 
 baptism at the fountain of Si- 
 lenus by drinking, 361 ; foun- 
 tain of Salmacis imparted its 
 virtue by drinking, or by en- 
 tering into, 148. 
 K.B. St. Ronan's well became 
 impregnated with a sulphuric 
 " virtue " by the saint dipping the 
 devil into it (Sir "W. Scott), which 
 virtue was imparted by drinking. 
 This legend has a parallelism 
 with the baptism of Cupid into 
 wine to impart to it his amorous 
 qualities, which were afterwards 
 imparted to the drinker of the 
 wine, so baptizing him, which is 
 expressed by the drinker feel- 
 ing within him "his titillating 
 wings. ' ' 
 
 SiMosr Magus : 
 baptized by " simple " water, 
 therefore not Christianly bap- 
 tized at all, 173, 174. 
 
448 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 Simple Water : 
 cannot baptize : Keque enim 
 aqua lavat animam sed prius 
 lavatuj: a Spiritu, ut alios 
 lavare spiritualiter possit . . . 
 baptisma non esse sine Spiritu 
 sancto . . . et tu mihi aqua 
 simiylici^ quasi de balneo, ani- 
 mam lotam producis ? 140. 
 
 Smith, Rev. Sidney : 
 reading before criticizing hamp- 
 ers genius, 21. 
 
 Smith, Dr. W. : 
 on baths, 120. 
 
 Sprinkle, To : 
 baptizing by sprinkling heifer 
 ashes, 100; competent to bring 
 out of one condition into an- 
 other =^ to baptize, 102, 125 ; 
 competent to wash (= to 
 cleanse), to purify the body, 
 139; sprinkling (tingere sparsa 
 aqua) to purify, 139 ; sprink- 
 ling baptizes from the leprosy, 
 185 ; renewing (== baptizing) 
 by sprinkling, 187; sprink- 
 lings and baptisms identified, 
 190, 198 ; Carson on sprink- 
 ling, 205, 216 ; sprinkling bap- 
 tizes, 346 ; "baptizing (= pu- 
 rifying) by this ashes they 
 sprinkled " — " sprinkling ■' 
 was the act, "baptizing" ex- 
 pressed the purifying effect, 
 the changed condition in tak- 
 ing out of ceremonial im.pu- 
 rity, and introducing into 
 ceremonial purity, 887, 388. 
 
 Stewart, Key. Charles : 
 Japanese bathing not by dip- 
 ping, or immersing, or cover- 
 ing in water, 123. 
 
 Stoiirdza, Alex, de : 
 error of, 347; "baptism by as- 
 persion" not "absurd," but 
 most rational, 850. 
 
 Stuart, Prof. Moses : 
 does not say, classic meaning in 
 " all cases " is dip^ plunge^ 21 ; 
 are variations, derived and 
 secondary meanings ; washing 
 and copious affusion, 21 ; on 
 change of syntax, 126. 
 Struzius : 
 
 Koirri, a dining couch, 182. 
 Sword, The Flaming : 
 baptizes, 222 ; at the entrance 
 of Paradise, 229 ; no dipping 
 in this baptism ; does change 
 condition, 230. 
 Symbol Baptism : 
 the Laver, because for cleans- 
 ing, 175 ; John's rite a sym- 
 bol baptism ( Josephus), 389. 
 Symmachus : 
 translates Ps. 69 : 1, 2, by jia-n- 
 
 TL^U^ 272. 
 
 Synonyms : 
 the synonyms of ISaTr-i^u (those 
 used as substitutes and equiv- 
 alents) express thorough 
 change of condition : temjpero, 
 144 ; purgo, diluo, 148 ; Ka- 
 Oa-fju, 152 ; lavacri vis, 159 ; 
 sano, 162 ; mundo, 164 ; abluo, 
 185 ; renovo, 187 ; dealbo, 187 ; 
 lavo, 197 ; purifico, 223 ; 
 aippayl^u, 224 ; ayvi^u^ 252 ; la- 
 vacrum regenerationis, 278. 
 
 Syntax, Change of : 
 shows change of thought and 
 change in meaning of words 
 haptized from the dead, 126 
 hajjUzed from the bed, 169 
 compare with, '■'■purifiedfrora'''' 
 the leprosy, 184 ; ' ' wash 
 from " sin, 187 ; " dip colors,^^ 
 237 ; " baptize frow. " anger, 
 277. 
 
 Tabal : 
 Buxtorf, 157 ; does not answer 
 to (iaTTTiCc), 157, 270. 
 
INDEX. 
 
 449 
 
 Tempero : 
 changes condition; baptism of 
 wine tempered by water, 144. 
 Tertullian : 
 " emerge " (= come out of one 
 condition . and pass into an- 
 other condition) "into the 
 the light," 95; baptism (= 
 change of condition) of the 
 waters at creation, 134 ; " sim- 
 ple" water cannot baptize, 
 142 ; the deluge a baptism, 
 because a purification, 148 ; 
 purified seven times, from 
 seven principal sins, 159 ; the 
 power of one (Christian) wash- 
 ing, 159; two baptisms (= 
 purifications) from the Sa- 
 viour's side, 217; '■'■ferrum 
 mersum est in flumine . . . du- 
 ritia seculi mersa in profunda 
 erroris,''^ 252, 263. 
 K. B. This last quotation has 
 great illustrative value. The verb 
 [mersum est), in the passive voice 
 and past tense, indicates the condi- 
 tion demanded by mergo (physical 
 envelopment, in literal use) as ac- 
 complished, and the object as 
 being and abiding in that condi- 
 tion, to wit, '''■ in flumine.'''' The 
 form ' ' in flumine ' ' does not belong 
 to the act (whatever that may be, 
 mergo expresses no specific act) 
 by which the mersion was effected, 
 but to the resultant condition, 
 which only is the demand of the 
 verb. If by "flumine" is ex- 
 pressed not the river as a whole — 
 banks, channel, water — but limit- 
 edly water onlj'-, then "ferrum 
 mersum est in flumine " can only 
 express the condition in which the 
 iron was and was abiding, namely, 
 on the bottom of the river and 
 enveloped by its waters. 
 
 Look, now, at a like Greek con- 
 struction from "Josephus (Jew, 
 Antiq. iii, 10), 63, 64 ; aal avv avroig 
 k^aTTTiC,0VTO GKafeaL kv rw 'lopdavri 
 
 itarafiu, and were baptized with 
 their vessels in the river Jordan 
 (= in lake Gennesareth, the expan- 
 sion of the Jordan)." Here, the 
 verb in the passive voice and past 
 tense shows not the baptizing as 
 being done, but the baptism, the 
 condition demanded by the verb, 
 as accomplished, and the objects 
 as being in and abiding in that 
 condition, to wit, on the bottom 
 of the river Jordan, at its expan- 
 sion in the lake Gennesareth, en- 
 veloped in its waters. 
 
 Whenever mergo, or (3aTTTli;u, are 
 used in the passive voice ai:(d past 
 tense, with the Latin in, or the 
 Greek ev, in regimen with the re- 
 ceiving element, then the changed 
 condition (demanded alike by both 
 these verbs) is represented as al- 
 ready accomplished, and the object 
 as resting and abiding in such con- 
 dition. And there, in its mersion 
 (except the power of mergo had 
 been broken by a miracle) the axe 
 would have remained unto this 
 day, just as the vessels with their 
 crews do remain in their baptism 
 in the depths of Jordan — Gennes- 
 areth, held there by the power of 
 (iaiTTi^u, until now. To these in- 
 terpretations I know of no excep- 
 tions in fact or by possibility. 
 
 Look, now, at another passage 
 presenting great likeness and 
 greater unlikeness — e/Ja-WCof-o 
 
 irdvTec h' ru 'lopddvy iroraiutl) (Mark 
 1:5). The verbal likeness in es- 
 sential elements — the same verb, 
 the same voice, the same tense, the 
 same preposition, the same subject 
 29 
 
450 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 of regimen— is complete ; and yet 
 the unlikeness is still more com- 
 plete ; the transaction is neither a 
 "woodchopping nor a naval battle, 
 but a religious ordinance ; the sub- 
 jects of the baptism are neither an 
 iron axe slipping from its helve, 
 nor fighting ships crushed by the 
 beaks of a hostile fleet, but guilty 
 men weeping for their sins ; the 
 design is neither to destroy prop- 
 erty nor to drown enemies, but to 
 express symbolly purity of soul 
 induced by the Holy Ghost through 
 godly sorrow for sin. 
 
 These are the resemblances and 
 the differences. Does " e/3a7rr/Covro 
 iv" exhibit these weeping peni- 
 tents as lying, in common with the 
 axe and the crushed ship with its 
 crew, in the Jordan upon the bot- 
 tom of its channel ? If h be re- 
 la,tedto'lop6dP7i TTGra/LiC) as limitedly 
 expressing water (the receiving ele- 
 ment into which the baptized ob- 
 ject is to pass, and therein to rest, 
 which resting in is expressed by 
 £v), then it must be so ; such con- 
 struction is inexorable in its de- 
 mands. But this is morally im- 
 possible, and untrue in fact. There 
 must, then, be an error somewhere. 
 Where is it V It is admitted by 
 Carson that h 'lopcViv?? wotcc/kI' may 
 mean not limitedly water, but 
 comprehensively the wholeness en- 
 tering into a river (banks, channel, 
 stream), and thus ev.may indicate 
 the space between the banks, 
 within which (without touching 
 the water) the baptism may have 
 taken place. Try now the pas- 
 sage under this admission, "They 
 were all baptized within the banks 
 of the river Jordan. " This saves 
 these weeping penitents from lying 
 
 alongside of the axe and the 
 crushed ship so far as h 'lopdavy 
 TTOTaiiQ is concerned. But what 
 is to be done with ejSaiTTL^ovro ? 
 Whatever ma-y be done with it, 
 this is certain, under Carson's ad- 
 mission that h 'lop^avy Tr.orft/'wmay 
 
 express locality, place, where all 
 connection between this verb and 
 this phrase as expressive of a re- 
 ceiving element is forever ended. 
 But still the question returns, 
 what is to be done with it V Turn, 
 then, to the parallel passage, Matt. 
 3 : 11, and see if a suitable ahvTayiia 
 for ifiaTTTii^ovTo (in a religious ordi- 
 nance and in relation with men 
 weeping for sin) cannot be found 
 in e'lg uETavoiav, as the ideal receiv- 
 ing element, and water used as a 
 symbol agency betokening the pu- 
 rifying nature of a passing out of 
 a condition of impenitence into a 
 condition of penitence, in which 
 condition fiaTZTii^u will keep the 
 soul abiding just as it keeps the 
 axe abiding in the Jordan and the 
 crushed ship abiding in Gennesa- 
 reth. 
 
 Thus, we meet every demand 
 of philology and of syntax, while 
 we deliver penitent sinners from 
 the fate of the chopping axe and 
 of the fighting ship. On the 
 other hand, to assume that the re- 
 ceiving element in the inspired 
 baptism of penitent sinners is the 
 same as that of the axe, and of the 
 ship, and that the verb in each 
 case retains its proper force, the 
 conclusion confronts us with a re- 
 ductio ad ahsurdum. To change 
 the character of the verb, taking 
 it out of the class expressive of 
 condition and putting it into the 
 class expressive of definite act, 
 
INDEX. 
 
 451 
 
 and changing it still farther from 
 the class of verbs which ex]press 
 no limit of time, to that class 
 which makes a sharp limitation of 
 time, as does dip, is both to sin 
 against the laws of language and 
 the authority of God's word. But 
 if this were done, there is no such 
 syntax as /?a7rrtfw kv to be found 
 expressing the execution of a bap- 
 tism out of one thing into another ; 
 nor is there such syntax to be 
 found as k/SairTiCovTo ev without ex- 
 pressing that the baptized object 
 is already in and abiding within 
 the receiving element, when such 
 element is associated with h. 
 
 But the instruction to be gatli- 
 ered from this language of Tertul- 
 lian will not be complete without 
 looking at that other phrase, "du- 
 ritia sseculi mersa in profundo er- 
 roris. ' ' We have here an ideal ele- 
 ment ("depth of error") substi- 
 tuted for the physical element (wa- 
 ter of Jordan), and in this element 
 (the passing into it not being stated 
 but implied) "the hardness of the 
 age" is represented as abiding in 
 a mersed condition, enveloped in 
 profound error. 
 
 In like manner the New Testa- 
 ment substitutes an ideal element 
 (in John's ministry, repentance, re- 
 mission of sins) for a physical ele- 
 ment (Jordan water, Gennesareth 
 water), and represents the subject 
 of baptism as passing into the 
 ideal element — repentance, remis- 
 sion of sins, and impliedly (from 
 the nature of (SaTTTi^u) abiding in 
 such condition, and changed in 
 conformity with the character of 
 the ideal element through the con- 
 trolling influence of its penetrat- 
 ing and pervading quality. The 
 
 water in New Testament baptism^^ 
 
 not being the receiving element, 
 
 but the symbol agency. 
 
 Touch, To : 
 may baptize, 141 ; without so 
 much as touching, 216 ; pass- 
 ing through water without 
 contact, 315 ; see Johannic 
 Baptism, 220. 
 
 Theorists, The : 
 constant apologists, their views 
 being opposed to facts, and 
 their interpretations unknown 
 to the most learned Greeks, 
 396 ; rhetoric extravagant, 
 and figures grotesque, 397 ; 
 theory overthrown by the facts 
 of Judaic Baptism, 398. 
 
 Thief, The Penitent : 
 baptized by "confession," hap- 
 tismapublicm confessionis, 221. 
 
 Tholuck, Professor : 
 
 " Calvin merges himself in Paul, 
 and becomes one with him," 
 325. 
 
 TiMON : 
 baptism by : water floods may 
 imperil without baptizing, 78. 
 
 TiNGO : 
 
 expresses change of condition 
 in the waters of a fountain 
 through a new quality (with- . 
 out color, without dipping) 
 imparted to them, and ena- 
 bling them to impart like 
 quality, 139 ; incerto medica- 
 mine fontem tinxit, 148 ; com- 
 pare water baptized to give 
 power to baptize, 197. 
 
 Torrents : 
 appealed to as ground for figu- 
 rative baptisms by the theory, 
 but not by the Classics or Pa- 
 trists, 133 ; figure pools and 
 torrents, 205. 
 
452 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 . Triptolemtjs : 
 
 immersion (= thorough, wetting) 
 by sprinkling (Sir Walter 
 Scott), 349. 
 Type Bapt^ism : 
 
 typico baptismate, 187 ; a type 
 must exhibit, in some aspect, 
 the characteristic of its anti- 
 type, 191 ; the exigencies of 
 the theorists to meet the sup- 
 posed demand, X>rove the ne- 
 cessity to meet the real de- 
 mand, 191 ; the act of sprink- 
 ling cannot be a type of the 
 act of dipping ; sprinkling the 
 blood of the lamb baptized 
 (= purified), and this lower 
 baptism (= purification) was 
 the type of the higher baptism 
 (= purification) by the blood 
 of the Lamb of God, 192; 
 Gale, Carson, Fuller, at con- 
 traries in interpreting their 
 "figurative" baptisms, 192; 
 circumcision, a ty^Q seal, 207 ; 
 baptism into Moses a type of 
 baptism into Christ the anti- 
 type, 292 ; baptism into 
 Joshua, a temporal Saviour, 
 type of baptism into Jesus, 
 the antitype spiritual Saviour, 
 324 ; Carmel altar purified by 
 pouring water on it, a type 
 baptism, 329 ; water poured 
 and sprinkled upon the altar, 
 consuming the sacrifice by 
 miracle, "baptisma signifi- 
 cari," 345 ; in no type baptism 
 spoken of by Patristic writers 
 (and they are many and vari- 
 ous) is any form of act made 
 the type of any form of act in 
 an antitype baptism, nor is 
 any covered condition in any 
 type baptism made the type 
 of some other covered condi- 
 
 tion in an antitype baptism ; 
 but in every type baptism 
 there is some thorough change 
 of condition (very varied as to 
 specific character) which is 
 made the type of that highest 
 change of condition of the 
 soul effected by Christian bap- 
 tism through the power of the 
 Holy Ghost, 350 ; while the 
 changes of condition effected 
 ^y typs baptisms were various 
 in their nature, they were or- 
 dinarily from ceremonial im- 
 purity to ceremonial purity, 
 showing direct and intimate 
 relationship with, and meet- 
 ness to become types of, that 
 one perfect antitype baptism 
 of the soul, purification by 
 the blood of the divine Lamb 
 as apphed by the divine Spirit, 
 351. 
 
 Ulysses : 
 
 "went into" and ".came out 
 of" a bath which was bypour- 
 iu(/, 120. 
 
 Vis Baptismatis : 
 Patristic baptism is neither a 
 dipping, nor a covering in wa- 
 ter, but a thoroughly changed 
 condition of soul effected by a 
 divine j)ower [vis] communi- 
 cated to and through the wa- 
 ter, a Sjnritu, 140 ; the " pow- 
 er" of baptism attributed to 
 a touch of the body of Christ, 
 per carnem CJiristi . . . jus hapj- 
 tismatis, 141 (Johan. Bapt., 
 
 220) ; dvva/MC ~ov i3a-7iauaTo^^ is 
 
 "the power of dipping" in- 
 telligible language ? 141 ; aqua 
 sola non potest purge sin and 
 sanctify (= baptize) without 
 
INDEX. 
 
 453 
 
 the Holy Spirit, 142 ; operatic 
 (= vis baptismatis) Spiritus 
 sancti est, 143 ; rfjv bJ.riQfi tov 
 TLvEvnaTog Pa(p7/v, 143 ; valet 
 baptisma, 144 ; gratia tem- 
 peravit, 144 ; unius lavacri vis, 
 159 ; quse habet gratiam 
 Christi, 163 ; in liunc fontem 
 vis divina descendit, 164 ; rri 
 dwd/nec^ 187 ; 6'uvaiiiv ayLorrj-oq^ 
 194 \ dvva/iicv ^arrTia/iaTOg^ 200 ; 
 
 "power" to baptize, 204; 
 baptizing "power" develop- 
 ed through sprinkling, 205 ; 
 water and blood are "two 
 baptisms, " not because an ob- 
 ject may be dipped into them, 
 but because they have the 
 "vis baptismatis" = power 
 to cleanse from sin, 217 ; mar- 
 tyr fire has "vis baptismatis," 
 247 ; broken cisterns (= Jew- 
 ish rites) have power to cleanse 
 (= baptize) the body only, 
 278 ; TTJv laxvv ISaiTTlG/iaTog^ 329 ; 
 " spiritalis gratia (= vis bap- 
 tismatis) burns up {per ignem) 
 and cleanses {per aquam) our 
 sins," 346. 
 Valesitjs : 
 translation from Josephus, 888. 
 
 Wash, to : 
 it is a radical error to carry the 
 conception of " wash," as de- 
 veloped in ordinary physical 
 use, as to action, extent of 
 application, and end sought, 
 into its use in religious rites. 
 Its meaning in these relations 
 is, broadly, to cleanse (effect, 
 not process), and the intro- 
 duction of questions as to 
 mode of action, extent of ap- 
 plication, and limitation of 
 cleansing to the extent of ap- 
 
 plication, is pure error : a re- 
 ligious washing (= cleansing) 
 has nothing to do with the 
 cleansing material, or the 
 mode, or the extent of appli- 
 cation ; washing with blood 
 (hands, face, body) outside of 
 religion is most defiling ; yet 
 washing with sacrificial blood, 
 with martyr blood, with aton- 
 ing blood (within the religious 
 sphere) is language expressive 
 of the most perfect moral pu- 
 rification, and as this blood- 
 washing is cleansing, purify- 
 ing, not defiling, so this wash- 
 ing may be by sprinkling, and 
 one drop touching will suffice 
 to wash (=: cleanse, purify) 
 the whole man ; or the blood 
 may not touch or be touched 
 by so much as one drop, and 
 yet, received by faith in its 
 power to cleanse, the whole 
 soul may be " washed by the 
 blood of the Lamb." 
 in washing religiously covering 
 not required, 115 ; Gale and 
 Carson wrong in their position 
 as to Aovu and lovrpov^ 117 ; 
 the sacrifice on the altar 
 "needed washing" {Seoiieva 
 lovrpov), yet not a physical 
 washing, but a religious wash- 
 ing {= ceremonial cleansing), 
 as Origen declares, "that it 
 might be fitted for burning 
 when the Lord should appear 
 in fire," 119, 328; covering 
 not needed to wash, outside 
 of religion, 120-122 ; still less 
 within this sphere, 123-126 ; 
 "water washes (=ir cleanses) 
 the soul, but is first washed 
 (= cleansed) by the Spirit, 
 that it may be able to wash 
 
454 
 
 INDEX. 
 
 (r= cleanse) others spiritu- 
 ally," 140; waters washed 
 (= cleansed) by touching the 
 body of Christ, 141 ; "simple 
 water,""" sole water," cannot 
 baptize (=: wash, purge, sanc- 
 tify) the soul, 140, 142 ; what- 
 ever can cleanse religiously, 
 can wash religiously, 178 ; 
 washings, especially religious 
 washings, not immersions, 
 176-178 ; washing (= cleans- 
 ing) without water by ceasing 
 to do evil and learning to do 
 well, 278 ; washing before 
 prayer — sprinkling the head 
 (Hesiod), sprinkling for puri- 
 fication (Philo), such sprink- 
 ling was religious washing {= 
 cleansing, purifying), 374. 
 N. B. Proof that ?iovw, lava, wash, 
 in common use for physical cleans* 
 ing, requires application of the 
 washing element as broad as the 
 physical defilement, has no logical 
 application to their religious use, 
 where the washing element has no 
 actual, but only putative washing 
 j)ower. Here the eflFect may be 
 broader than the application. 
 Water Baptized : 
 water baptized (=^ cleansed, pu- 
 rified, sanctified) in the begin- 
 ning of creation by the Hol}'^ 
 Spirit, 134 ; in this baptism 
 water was the object baptized, 
 but was made competent to 
 become afterward the agency 
 in religious baptizings, i. e., 
 to communicate the quality 
 which it had received, as wa- 
 ter which has received a new 
 quality of color (dyed purple) 
 will give again to other ob- 
 jects that same quality of 
 color (will dye them purple). 
 
 137 ; baptized water baptizes 
 by sprinkling, just as dj^ed 
 water dyes by sprinkling, 139 ; 
 "simple" water, however 
 used, by dipping into it, or 
 by covering with it, cannot 
 patristically baptize, 140 ; wa- 
 ter to wash (=: cleanse) the 
 soul must first be washed (= 
 cleansed) by the Spirit, 140 ; 
 water haa power to baptize 
 (= cleanse), because washed 
 (= cleansed) by being touched 
 by the body of Christ, 141 ; 
 "sole," like "simple," water 
 cannot purge sin (= baptize), 
 142 ; water does not heal (= 
 baptize) without the Holy 
 Spirit, 143 ; " non omnis aqua 
 sanat ; sed aqua sanat, quae 
 habet gratiam Christi," 163 ; 
 Tu Tiovrpu not by "simple" 
 water, is by sprinkling, 188, 
 194 ; " it is necessary that the 
 water be first purified and 
 sanctified by the priest, that 
 it may be able hy its own bap- 
 tism to take away the sins of 
 the man baptized by it. " This 
 passage of itself destroys the 
 theory, 1. BaTrri^u means to 
 dip ; 2. Baptism is a covering 
 in water ; for here is a baptism 
 in which there is neither dip- 
 ping nor covering, in fact or 
 by possibiUty, 197, 204 ; " two 
 baptisms" = the water, and 
 the blood coming from the 
 Saviour's side ; this water 
 does not baptize by any natu- 
 ral quality, but by a super- 
 natural quality communicated 
 to it, by which it baptizes = 
 changes the condition of the 
 soul, takes away sin, so the 
 Patrists believed ; so blood is 
 
INDEX. 
 
 45.' 
 
 a "baptism," and like water, 
 not by natural quality, which 
 fits it to be a receiving ele- 
 ment for anything "dipped" 
 into it {reddening it all over), 
 but against natural quality 
 whitening its object through 
 the supernatural quality com- 
 municated to it — "These are 
 they that have washed their 
 robes and made them white in 
 the blood of the Lamb." As 
 water colored by murex is 
 changed in its condition and 
 becomes a dye, with power 
 {vis) to dye by pouring or 
 sprinkling, so water, or blood, 
 or tears, imbued with this 
 spiritual quality, is changed 
 in its condition, and becomes 
 a "baptism " with power {vis) 
 to baptize (= to change con- 
 dition) conformably with the 
 characteristic of the imparted 
 spiritual quality. That Chris- 
 tian baptism consisted in a 
 dipping into water, or blood, 
 or tears, by reason of the act 
 of dipping, or by reason of 
 the consequent momentary 
 covering, is an idea which 
 never entered into the mind 
 of any Patristic writer for 
 half a thousand years after 
 Christian baptism was estab- 
 lished. This I say with con- 
 fidence after personal exami- 
 nation. The same, I presume, 
 is true for thrice five hundred 
 years, until friends of this 
 modern theory arose amid the 
 agitations of the sixteenth 
 century. The twofold basis 
 on which this theory rests, 
 viz., 1. BanTl^u has but one 
 
 meaning, a definite act, to dip ; 
 2. The covering of naked men 
 and women in water practiced 
 for centuries, and supposed 
 by the theorists to be done 
 in obedience to the meaning 
 of (SaTTTl^u, and this act, or 
 this momentary covering 
 being farther supposed to con- 
 stitute Christian baptism, is, 
 in definition and in supposi- 
 tion, as absolute error as was 
 ever adopted by honest men, 
 217, 221. 
 
 Water Floods : 
 not image of baptism, but of 
 distress and peril, SO •, Co- 
 nant's appeal to the " deep 
 waters " not ad rem, 78, 80. 
 
 Webster, IToah : 
 definition of dip, immerse, 26. 
 
 Wellington, Duke of : 
 " man of war," 127. 
 
 Worcester, Joseph E. : 
 definition of dip, immerse, 26. 
 
 Whelm : 
 and overwhelm, used to express 
 resistless influence, without 
 covering, 89 ; the ground of 
 the use in effect, the character 
 determined by the adjunct, 
 90, 91 ; Conant's remarkable 
 translations, 302, 
 
 WiLKiKSON, Sir J. Gardiner : 
 Egyptian bathing not immer- 
 sion, 121. 
 
 Williams, Dr. Edward : 
 to purify ceremonially, 398. 
 
 Wilson, Prof. Egbert : 
 Greek bathing not immersion, 
 120 ; change of syntax, 126, 
 238. 
 
 Xenophon : 
 
 icoirn, a dining couch, 181. 
 
FOURTH EDITION. 
 
 Uy James W. Dale, Pastor of the Media Presbyterian Church, Delaware Co., Penn. 
 
 " EXHAUSTIVE "—" OEIGINAL"—" UN ANSWEKABLE. " 
 
 "It BANKS WITH Edwards ON THE Will," .... Episcopalian. 
 
 "Tt IS REALLY AN EXTRAORDINARY BOOK," .... W. Christian Advocate. 
 
 *'LoGic OP Chillingworth; WIT OF Pascal," . . . N. Y. Evangelist. 
 
 "It COMES IN LIKE Blucheb AT Waterloo, ". . . . Congregational Review. 
 
 "The ABLEST Treatise on the subject in the English Language," Central Presbyt^n 
 
 •'It 13 A Marvel," Dr. H. A. B. "It is a master-piece," Dr. T.J.W. 
 
 Congregational Retiew. 
 
 " A work of great research, scholarly fidelity, and immense labor. Mr. Dale's treatment of Baptist 
 authorities ia comprehensive, liberal, critical, and dissecting, occupying about one hundred pages. About 
 sixty pages are given to the import of ffaTTTCJ- These pages are a beautiful specimen of scholarly, contro- 
 yersial. and kind writing, sprinkled, and even at times immersed, in the good humor of the author's nature 
 and style. Mr. Dale devotes the rest of his noble volume, one hundred and fifty pages, to the meaning of 
 ffarTTi^oi- This book cornea in as Blucher at Waterloo, and the bellum philologicum ought to cease." 
 
 Presbyterian Banner. 
 " To the minister and the man of letters it is a great armory from which weapons of defence may be 
 drawn. Its perusal and study will prove to be a delightful and invigorating mental discipline. When "this 
 series shall have been completed, it will at once take the place of the noted writings hitherto produced by 
 this controversy." 
 
 The Presbyterian, Montreal, Canada. 
 " ' Classic Baptism ' dispels the illusion that the strength of the philological argument is on the side of our 
 opponents. More perhaps than any other writer, Mr. Dale has settled the vexed question as to the meaning 
 of^aTrrifu." 
 
 Christian Advocate, Hamilton, Canada. 
 
 •'We are fully convinced that the author has forever settled the question of modal baptism by proving, to 
 a demonstration, that Patrri^o} does not express a definite act of any kind, much less that of dipping, but 
 that, in its primary use, it expresses condition without limitations." 
 
 Protestant Churchman. 
 "It is thoroughly exhaustive, and exhibits a complete mastery of the subject. If the other volumes equal 
 this in force and in learning, and we can scarcely doubt that they will, the author must, we think, be ac- 
 counted master of the position." 
 
 The Episcopalian. 
 
 "In the prosecution of the undertaking nothing is left unnoticed, nothing is left nnsaid which it is de* 
 sirable to view or to produce. The book may be fairly ranked with Edwards on ' The Will,' Gaussen on 
 'Inspiration,' and Goode on 'Orders.' Keplies to all will be equally difScult, and in every case just as un- 
 satisfactory." 
 
 Western Christian Advocate. 
 
 " As a philological treatise on this subject, there is nothing we know of in our language to compare with 
 it. The most industrious and independent scholarship has been brought to bear upon the subject, and an 
 invaluable addition has thus been made to theological literature. It is really an extraordinary book." 
 
 Western Presbyterian. 
 "This is not simply a new hook; it is a new worfc, and one of extraordinary ability and originality- 
 originality in the whole conception and investigatiou. His masterly approaches have crumbled the Baptist 
 stronghold in ruins. Proof is carried to the point of actual demonstration. The marked features of thia 
 work are thoroughness, candor, firmness, freedom from asperity (a Christian spirit and genial humor flow- 
 ing through every part of it), and a singular ability and acuteness in the study of words. Procure this hook." 
 
 The Presbyter. 
 
 " This is one of the most remarkable books which has ever appeared in opposition to those who hold that 
 SaTrri^di always means to immerse or its equivalent. It is an original and exhaustive work." 
 
 The Evangelist. 
 
 "The author does not follow the furrows of others ; he holds and handles a subsoil plough of his own. 
 The manner in which Baptist advocates are shown to be at variance with each other is admirable. It is in 
 tracing the shifting of the terms used to translate Pairrl^w that the author makes perfect havoc of Baptist 
 scholarship. His style of doing this ia sometime,^ positively entertaining. Our Baptist brethren are placed 
 by this volume in a sad dilemma. The treatise combines the thorough and sifting argumentation of Chil- 
 lingworth with much of the wit of Pascal." 
 
 Free Christian Commonwealth. 
 "Remarkable skill in philology, dry and imperturbably quiet humor carries the reader along unconscious 
 of weariness. We have seldom met with a more manly, keeu, vigorous, and every way effi-ctive specimen of 
 dialectics. Humor exudes from his dialectic falchion as fragrance from the Damascus blade, by reason of 
 the intensity of its tempering and polish. Certainly no writer ever impressed us more with his peculiar 
 genius as a philologist, especially his keen powers of discrimination of the various shades of thought as ex- 
 pressed by symbol words." 
 
Judflm^nt of ^^thoIarH 
 
 IN MORE THAN TWENTY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES, UNITERSITIES, AiVD COLLEGES 
 
 EPISCOPAL AND UNIVEESITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. 
 
 " Classic Baptism" embodies an immense amount of research and learning. The 
 opinions of Professors Goodwin and Hare establish its merits. 
 
 Kt. Kev. Bishop Lee, Delaware, 
 
 The pages which I have read assure me that the subject is one wholly within the 
 grasp of a sound scholar and a deep and close thinker, who will treat it with all tho 
 learning and argument which the importance of the question demands. 
 
 Et. Eev. Bishop Stevens, Pennsylvania. 
 
 I have read your work on "Classic Baptism," with a satisfaction amounting 
 almost to admiration. If it has any fault, it is that the discussion is too thorough 
 and radical to be generally appreciated. But it is a work for scholars ; and, in 
 fact, just such a discussion is what was needed. It has long been my conviction 
 that the Baptist controversy is practically narrowed down to this one point : their 
 allegation, that the Greek ySit^T/^a means absolutely and always, ex vi termini, "to 
 dip" or "to immerse," and nothing else. If this position is turned, the Baptist cause 
 's irrecoverably lost. 
 
 Your book will reflect credit, not only on your Alma Mater, but on the scholarship 
 of the country. I am many degrees prouder of the University of Pennsylvania than 
 I was before reading it. Daniel E. Goobwin, D.D., 
 
 Provost of the University of Penn'a and Prof, of Theol. Divinity Scliool. 
 
 I am much impressed by the research which the pages of your book exhibit, 
 and trust that its success will be equal to its scholarship. 
 
 G. Emlen Hare, D.D., Divinity School, "West Philadelphia. 
 
 Any tenant of the Greek chair must feel complimented to have hi?, critical judg- 
 ment asked upon an inquiry so elaborate as yours. ... I can fairly do no more 
 than express my sincere admiration of the exhaustive character of your examination 
 of passages from the entire range of classical literature, and of the singular acutenes& 
 with which you have scrutinized the phenomena of language thus presented. . . 
 Your treatise, when published, will be sure to attract the attention of classical schol- 
 ars as well as of theologians. 
 
 George Allen, Professor of Greek, University of Pennsylvania. 
 
 METHODIST. 
 
 I regard the work as a very valuable acquisition to theological literature. 
 
 Joseph Ctjmmings, D.D., LL.D., President, &c., Wesleyan University. 
 
 I have read "Classic Baptism" with great interest and profit. It is altogether 
 the most thorough and exhaustive discussion ot the topic that I have ever met with, 
 and I doubt if its equal can anywhere be found. The author settles beyond perad- 
 venture, the question as to the meaning of /Jdirrw and Panriiu in classic usage. The 
 treatise is full of argument and illustration compactly and systematically arranged, 
 forming for the preacher and the theological student the most perfect handbook on 
 this topic extant. It gives me great pleasure to commend the work with unqualified 
 approbation. 
 
 F. H. Nevthall, D.D., Wesleyan University. 
 
 I heartily indorse Dr. Newhall's estimate of " Classic Baptism." 
 
 C. S. Harrington, Wesleyan University. 
 
 I have but glanced at "Classic Baptism." I anticipate the pleasure of reading it 
 more thoroughly. Allow me to congratulate you on the very encouraging and com- 
 plimentary notices which your labors have won from so many distinguished sources. 
 
 D. P. Kidder, D.D., Garrett Biblical Institute. 
 
mmip ?mi^j^- 
 
 30 
 
 COLLEGES, UNIVEKSITIES, THEOLOGICAL SEMINAEIES, SAY: 
 "THE BAPTIST THEOEY IS OVEETHEOWK" 
 
 "All the strongholds op the theory demolished," . 
 "a most masterly philological discussion," . 
 
 " Appeal TO USAGE MUST SETTLE THE CONTROVERSY," . 
 
 "Happy and successful vindication op the truth," 
 "Despair cannot, logically, continue the controversy,' 
 
 Prof. B. M. Smith. 
 Prof. J. C. Moffat. 
 Prof. J. Packard. 
 Prof. J. T. Cooper. 
 Prof. W. J. Beecher. 
 
 Peikcetok Theological Seminaet. — Frof. J. C. Moffat, D.D. 
 
 " If there is to be an end to controversy on a point of philology, this is the way to reach it. I have 
 gone over the whole of the sheets sent me. Finished in the style of what is already done, your work 
 will be one of the most masterly philological discussions in our language." 
 
 Thbolooical Semikaet, TJ. V.—Prof. J. T. Cooper, S.D. 
 
 " I cannot refrain from congratulating you on the happy and successful manner in which you have 
 vindicated the truth in relation to John's Baptism. If any regard is to be paid to reason and argu- 
 ment, your work should bring this controversy to an end." 
 
 Theological Seminaet, Columbia.— Pro/. J. H. Wilson, D.D. 
 
 " The sheets have interested me exceedingly. In every instance your interpretation of Scripture 
 appears to me eminently fair. You have strained nothing. Your discussion of the preposition h 
 is the very best I have seen in connection with this controversy. I have been greatly instructed, 
 too, by the manner in which you handle the Iv Ylvtifian 'Ayi'tj as furnishing the leading parallelism 
 with which to understand the iv viari. I heartily approve, too, of the disposition you make of Iv 
 Xpi(TTcp, and of Christ's (and others) being kv Uvsvitan 'avi'm. This is capital. In short, you send to 
 me for criticism, I reply by eulogy. The series taken together constitute a chain." . , . 
 
 From Prof. Wm. S. Plwmer, D.D. 
 
 " Dr. Dale's work on John's Baptism will be very able and meet with the cordial approval of the 
 great body of the Christian Church, except only those who contend that baptism cannot be rightly 
 administered but by the application of the person to the water." 
 
 Deew Theolooical Seminaey.— Prof. James Strong, D.D. 
 
 " I heartily concur In the general conclusions of Johannic Baptism, and rejoice that the assump- 
 tions of the theory are so thoroughly refuted." 
 
 Theological Seminaet (Lctheean), Getttsbueo.— Pro/. S. S. ScTivmcJcer, D.D. 
 
 " Johannic Baptism is a work of very superior scholarship, of much logical acumen, and of im- 
 portant results. The author's investigations are singularly far-reaching, exhaustive, and satisfac- 
 tory. The concrete form in wliicli he has presented much of the discussion, cannot fail to give it 
 additional interest to the popular reader, whilst the genial spirit which pervades it, makes it pleas- 
 ant to all. It is to be hoped, in view of these investigations aad results, that our Baptist brethren 
 will soon cease to magnify. We cordially recommend this volume to all who feel an interest in 
 radical and learned investigation." 
 
"Assumptions of thb theory THOROuoHLr reputed," . Prof. James Strong, D.D. 
 
 " Interpretation OP Scripture eminently fair,". . Prof. J. R. Wilson, DI?. 
 
 •'CoRDiAi, APPROVAL OF THE Christian Church," . , Prof. W. S. Plumer, D.D, 
 
 "Fully proved your point ninety-nine times," . . Prof. . i. 
 
 "The THEORY is EXPOSED AND DEMOLISHED," , . . Pres. WUUs Lord, D.D. 
 
 Theological SEMtNABT, Episcopal, Alexasdeia. — Frof. J. Packard, D.D. 
 
 " Johannic Baptism is characterized by the same exhaustive appeal to the usage of /?airri?&), and 
 the prepositions connected with it, as your previous works. This appeal to usage mast settle the 
 controversy, if anything can. I shall commend all your works." 
 
 Theological Seminaet, Hampden Stdket.— Pro/. B. M. Smith, D.D. 
 
 " Your scholarly and discriminating view of John's Baptism leaves nothing to he desired, whether 
 for sustaining your great proposition as to the true meaning of the word in its religious as well as 
 tropical meaning, or the interpretation of the particles which are combined with its usage. I have 
 been particularly gratified by your triumphant exhibition of the local force of Iv when connected 
 with Pa-nrisoi, and your clear and forcible presentation of the power of d^. You are doing a great 
 and good work both for Scripture exegesis and for settling on irrefragable grounds the meaning of 
 this long-discussed word." 
 
 Westekn Theological Semiitaet.— Pro/. S. J. Wilson, D.D. 
 
 " I have examined the points to which you directed my attention, and it seems to me these points 
 are made good. Your discussions open up .to me a new world on that subject. To me your argument 
 is intensely interesting and carries conviction with it. My appreciation of your work increases with 
 every volume." 
 
 Adbuek Theological Semiwakt. — Prof. W. J. Beecher. 
 
 " You have invested this discussion with fresh interest and increased light. The view given of 
 Mark 7 : 4 is tenable, and the translation of John 1 : 25 is vindicated. PdirrKrfia has not, in my 
 judgment, any physical usage in the New Testament. And the usage of the phrase (iaizricua 
 ;ji£Tai>0Lag proves that neravoia is the differentia characterizing John's baptism as distinguished from 
 other baptisms. It is imperative that si; a(p€aiv ajiapiroiv be taken as the verbal or ideal element de- 
 manded by 0d7TTiaiia. Your reasoning is complete as against the current Baptist syllogism, '■(iavTi(,oi 
 requires an enveloping element : that element can be nothing else than water : therefore the water 
 must be an enveloping element.' You have conclusively proved that something else not only may 
 be, but is, the enveloping element. That lia-Kri'^w so controls the use of the water as to demand en- 
 velopment within it, you have, indeed, exposed as pure error. In view of your discussion, either 
 with or without the emendations which my present views would require, I unhesitatingly answer 
 your final question, ' Can despair prolong the controversy?' Not logically.'''' 
 
 WoosTEE tJifiVEEsiTT. — President W. Lord, D.D. 
 
 " I cannot tell you with how deep an interest I have read the third part of your great work on 
 Baptism. In my view, the Theory, as you gently name it, is exposed and demolished, as it never 
 has been before. If truth can end it, it will perish. The completion of your work, in the manner in 
 which it has been so far done, ought to secure you the gratitude of the whole Church of Christ." 
 
 , Professor of Greek. 
 
 '■ Johannic Baptism, from its very extensive and minute research, its closeness and keenness of 
 logic, and its corruscations of humor and wit, I have found very interesting. I have truly marvelled 
 at your patience in stopping against the ' immersionists ' every actual, probable, possible, imaginary, 
 improbable, and impossible hole ; and when you had proved a point ninety-nine times, still proving 
 it the hundredth lest some one should fancy that your work was not otherwise quite complete. The 
 general views which yon present of the uses of /Janrija) and ev (also si;), it seems to me, cannot be 
 refuted." 
 
 ^WM. RUTTER & CO., Publishers, 
 
 Setenth and Cherry Sts., Philadelphia. 
 Price, $4.00; to Ministers $3.50. 
 
" Frank, siraig ktforwar.i, never intentionally unfair.'''' 
 
 1 HAVE BEEN PASCINATET) WITH YOUR WORKS," Rt. Rev. A. O. OONB, D.D, 
 
 " For the cause of truth a most valuable work." . . . . N. L. Rice, L T). 
 "Your volumes mark an epoch in this controversy," . . . H. A. Bdardman, D.D. 
 "It should be in the library op every clergyman," .... Bishop Simpson, D.D. 
 
 " M ASSAsippi you have found your match," Rev. J. W. Moore. 
 
 " Pages spiced with wit are agreeable, sometimes amusing," United Presb. Review. 
 >' The water is taken from under them. They are stranded," Congregational Review. 
 
 Kt. Eev. a. Cleveland Coxb, D.D., Bishop of "Western New York. 
 
 " I have been so fascinated with Classic and Judaic Baptism, that I have road, in 
 spite of myself, until I am forced to lay them down, and write at once, to thank you 
 Your work must force our Baptist brethren, for very shame, to give up their extreme 
 ideas on this point. Their enterprise of reforming our dear old English Bible, just 
 at this time, makes your works very opportune, and they annihilate the pretences of 
 the scheme so effectually, that I trust it will be given up. I will commend j'our books 
 to my Keverend brethren, and I am grateful that they will find such an armory in 
 your pages." 
 
 Bishop Simpson, D.D., Methodist Episcopal Ckicrch. 
 
 "I have examined your work on Judaic Baptism, and have been greatly pleased. 
 The work evinces great industry and research, and is exhaustive in its character. It 
 should be in the library of every clergyman." 
 
 N. L. EiCE, D.D., President of Westminster College, Missouri. 
 " You have done for the cause of truth a most valuable work — evidently the result 
 of long and patient labor. Your criticisms on the terms — Greek, Latin, and Eng- 
 lish — involved in the controversy, are, in my judgment, sound and of great value. 
 These two works, as it seems to me, go far toward settling the controversy with im- 
 partial minds. I do not know that 1 should differ from your views in any important 
 point." 
 
 Henrt a. Boaedman, D.D., Philadelphia, Penn'a. 
 
 " I am greatly impressed with the thoroughness and ability of Judaic Baptism. 
 The publication of your volumes marks an epoch in this protracted controversy. You 
 have laid upon our Baptist brethren a task beysnd their strength. Why did you not 
 go about your work ten years sooner, and save them the labor, vexation, and ex- 
 pense of their ' New Version?' " 
 
 W. Henry Green, D.D., Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jersey. 
 " These and similar cases, Baptist writers, by means of dexterous manipulation and 
 an adroit change of terms, are in the habit of claiming as though they made in their 
 favor. But Dr. Dale will not allow any shuffling ; he holds them to the strict terms 
 of the bond, and with a great amount of good humored banter, but with clinching 
 force, shows that " dip " will not answer in a single case." 
 
 Kev. J. "W. Moore, Austin, Arkansas. 
 " For almost forty years I have been in conflict with Baptists and Campbellites. 
 The immersionists made war upon me on my first arrival in ' the Territory.' Judge 
 from these facts of ray interest in Judaic Baptism. Dr. Miller, of Princeton, told 
 me of an old negro who looked, for the first time, on a steamboat stemming the 
 mighty current of the Mississippi, and, after gazing for some time in mute astonish- 
 ment, exclaimed: ' Well, old MASSAsippi, you have found your match at last.' Your 
 book forcibly reminds me of this speech." 
 
 Key. J. H. Barnard, Waukesha, "Wisconsin. 
 " I was forced lately into a discussion of Baptism. I purchased your works, and 
 spent many days and nights over them. They gave me such a thorough insight into 
 the subject as I never had before. Many who were unsettled have come to thank 
 me for the entirely satisfactory view which I had given them, and I, in turn, thank 
 you for the valuable treatment of the subject j^ou Jiave given to the church and the 
 world. I can, now, speak intelligently and with confidence on the subject. Some of 
 the advocates of the theory, here, are completely demoralized. Again, I thank you 
 for the invaluable aid received from your two volumes." 
 
 Congregational Review. 
 " Judaic Baptism has the same learning and skill that marked Classic Baptism. 
 These two volumes must attract great attention. They form a work of great pow&r. 
 Dr. Dale has most eflectively shown the absurdity of the Baptist position. It is, now, 
 a matter of doubt, whether they have any position. He has fairly taken away the 
 ground, or rather the water, from under them. They are stranded. 
 
" Calm, self-poised, patient, master of the situation." 
 " The same cleae discrimination and lucid expeession," Peof . Moffat. 
 
 "YOUE SERVICES IN THIS INQUIEY ARE OF THE HIGHEST VALUE," .... PeOF. ShEDD. 
 
 " I CONGEATULATE YOU ON THE SUCCESS OF TOUE LAEORS," PeOF. B. M. SmITU. 
 
 "LEAENED, INSTEUCTIVE, EXHAUSTIVE, MASTEELY," PrOF. JeWETT. 
 
 "Be AMPLY eewaeded fok laboe on the aegument," Albert Barnes. 
 
 "Great eeseaech and wondeeful oeiginality," So. Peesb. Eeview- 
 
 " Great ability, originality, patience, fairness," Biblioth.-Sacra. 
 
 PbofessoS James C. Moffat, Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jeeset. 
 ... I have carefully read the passage on pp. 224-239, and it seems to me that the secondary mean- 
 ing of Pa-Ti^cj is fully made out and forcibly presented. I find in all that I have read the same clear 
 discrimination, and lucid expression, which gratified me so much in the former volume. 
 
 Professor W. G. T. Shedd, Union Theological Seminary, New York. 
 Your services in this department of inquiry I regard, as do others, of the highest value. 
 
 Professor George B. Jewett, Amherst College, Massachusetts. 
 
 You are moving forward grandly in your work. The more I study your books the greater and 
 more unqualified becomesmy admiration of them. It is impossible to turn yourmain positions. Your 
 noble work is equally learned, instructive, exhaustive and masterly. 
 
 Rev. Albert Barnes, Philadelphia, Penna. 
 I hope you will be amply rewarded for the labor which you have bestowed on the argument. 
 I write this by the aid of a machine, and in the dark. 
 
 Rev. H. L. Polins, Pennshoro, West Virginia. 
 
 In two discussions, extending through several days, I have made free use of Classic and Judaic 
 Baptism. They have proved themselves to be unanswerable. 
 
 Rev. J. G. D. Stearns, Clearwater, Minnesota. 
 
 I have read Classic and Judaic Baptism with delight and admiration, and for the first time feel 
 that I understand the subject, although I had previously read everything on both sides that I could 
 lay my hands on. 
 
 President Edward Beecher, Galeshurg, Illinois. 
 
 ... I have read Classic and Judaic Baptism with greatcare and with deep interest. Some of your 
 proofs of this secondary sense (purification) have been previously adduced by me ; others I had 
 Been but did not find room to adduce ; others still, and those of great power and value, I had not seen, 
 and I feel much indebted to you for producing them. . . . 
 
 United Presbyterian Review. 
 ... A most important contribution to the cause of truth, and will serve largely to bring about 
 the proper mode of administering the initiatory rite of the Christian church. . . . 
 
 Theological Medium {(Quarterly of Cumberland Presbyterian Church). 
 
 These are works of the most profound research, and in scholarship evince extraordinary ability. 
 Dr. Dale, with rare acumen, parfect courtesy, and good-humored raillery, traces ffa-nTi^oi . . . Every 
 position he sustains by the careful citation of authorities. His purely classic style, freedom from ac- 
 rimony, and display of conscious strength, give him advantage over his opponents. These works are 
 invaluable. The results may be used with full confidence and with triumphant success. . . . 
 
 / Southern Pbesbttbrian Review. 
 
 The extraordinary ability of Classic Baptism won for its writer a deserved distinction among 
 philological scholars, and raised him to a position of absolute pre-eminence among the controversial- 
 ists who had hitherto occupied the field of his choice. . . . The meanings of (iairTw and jSanrtsu are 
 traced with rare skill and with the acutest criticism, with inferences perfectly crushing to all immer- 
 sionists. . . . Judaic Baptism erects a superstructure of which Classic Baptism is the immovable foun- 
 dation ; for Dr. Dale here proceeds upon the classical usage of /3a7rri<,'tJ, established by his own labors, 
 in a manner never before even attempted, to investigate by labors .equally great and equally new, its 
 usage in Jewish and Patristic writings. The success is complete. . . . Nothing can exceed the strength 
 of the proof but the force of the conclusion. 
 
 Bibliotheoa Sacra, And(yver, Massachusetts. 
 
 The subject treated in these volumeshas been herediscussed with more thoroughness and breadth 
 of research than have before been brought to it in this country. . . . The discussion indicates great 
 ability, originality, patient investigation, fair-mindedness, clear discrimination, and has done invalu- 
 able eervice to the cause in whose defence it was undertaken. . . . 
 
 Octavo, pp. 400. Price, $3.50 ; Clergymen, $3.00. 
 
 WM. RTJTTER & CO., Publishers, 
 
 Skventh and Cherry Streets, Philadelphia. 
 
The treatment of the subject is beautifully exhaustive. Conceding all that you do 
 for the primary sense of the words under discussion, your conclusions yet seem to me 
 irrefragable. 
 
 The work is a valuable contribution to philological literature, and cannot fail to 
 have a weighty bearing in the application of the argument to the mode of Christian 
 baptism. 
 
 I shall look with much interest for the succeeding volumes that are promised. 
 
 H. M. Johnson, D.D., LL.D., President of Dickinson College. 
 
 LUTHEEAN. 
 
 My delay in replying to your favor, is to be accounted for only by the absorbing 
 Interest of the work you did me the honor of placing in my hands. I have endeav- 
 ored, as you requested, "to look over it," but have found that next to impossible. 
 My attention has been fixed by every part of it, so that I have had to go into the reg- 
 ular study of it. Its rare originality of plan, the extensive reading indicated, the ac- 
 curacy of discrimination everywhere met with, the honest impartiality observed, 
 and the quiet, pleasant humor that every now and then looks out, altogether combine 
 to mark it as a work of unusual attractiveness, and destined, I doubt not, to exert a 
 commanding influence upon the general subject of this famous controversy. The 
 conclusion so aptly stated in page 354, is clearly made out, and, as I consider, nothing 
 but the spirit of determined adherence to mere traditionary usages could manage to 
 Btand out against it. 
 
 C. W. ScHAEFFER, D.D., Lutheran Theological Seminary. 
 
 I am thankful that you wrote " Classic Baptism. " Page after page exhibits the wea- 
 pons I knew were needed, but which I did not know were forged. One-half on our 
 side are not aware of the grand array which this book shows we can make on classic 
 grounds. I mean to read it again, as Dr. Schaefifer says he did. 
 
 W. Jesse Kniselt, Ohio. 
 
 DUTCH EEPOEMED. 
 
 I have examined your " Classic Baptism" carefully, and with absorbing interest. 
 I thank you for the privilege. I believe that you have done more to settle the 
 vexed question, anent the meaning of /?an-ri?a), than any writer who has preceded you. 
 The discussion interests and satisfies. I have given your book a warm recommen- 
 dation to the middle and senior classes in the Seminary. I am glad to see the pros- 
 pectus of the Judaic and Johannic Baptisms. 
 
 God bless you and spare you to write many more good books. 
 
 J. F. Beeq, D.D., Professor of Theology, &c. 
 
 OOMEEGATIONAL. 
 
 If I were to utter my first impressions, I should break out in unfeigned admiration. 
 That one, occupied with the ordinary duties of the pastorate, should have the leisure, 
 patience, and mental energy for an inquiry seldom surpassed as respects thorough 
 research, is to me a marvel. I can give emphatic testimony to the analytic' power 
 and acuteness which the treatise exhibits, as well as to its marked perspicuity and 
 directness of statement 
 
 The theory that /janri^M expresses a definite act, — "mode and nothing but mode," — 
 is shown to be pitiably helpless when applied to " all Greek literature." .... 
 
 J, Henry Thayer, Andover Theological Seminary. 
 
 I admire the energy, perseverance, and unwearied diligence which the author has 
 put forth in his work. There is no other way of dealing with such a subject satis- 
 factorily ; but how few there are capable of taking it up in this way 1 Let us have 
 faci instead of declamation; and fact is what Mr. Dale has given us. Out of this 
 forest of philological learning I should hope there might be, in due time, a little 
 grove selected for the security and comfort of the unlettered Christian. 
 
 C. E. Stowe D.D., late of Lane and Andover Theol. Seminaries. 
 
I have looked over the work carefully, and find no imperfections to be corrected. 
 You have made a very decided advance in the literature of the subject. I am much 
 interested in the numerous quotations which you make from classical writers. 1 
 have never seen this thing done so thoroughly and so well. Your book ought to do 
 much toward settling the disputed question as to the mode of " Baptism." 
 
 Enoch Pond, D.D., Bangor Theological Seminary. 
 
 Perhaps it is too much to expect that your work will finally settle the controver- 
 sies of centuries upon the word under discussion, but it is safe to say, that what you 
 have written will not be easily answered. I think you may well be congratuliilcd 
 on finding time and opportunity, while engaged in the practical duties of ihc min- 
 istry, to produce a work like this, — evincing so much learned research, so valuable 
 to the Biblical student and so creditable to American scholarship. 
 
 Leonard Woods, D.D., (Late) President of Bowdoin College. 
 
 1 want to thank you for eminent service rendered to the Church of Christ by your 
 "Classic Baptism." No treatise has so pleased me. No one has so laboriously and 
 carefully covered the old Greek authors. Having run over about two hundred vol- 
 umes on the subjects and mode of baptism in Harvard College Library, you can see 
 how I should enjoy your treatise. I shall wait, with deep interest. Judaic and Jo- 
 hannic Baptism. 
 
 "W. Barrows, D.D,, Beading, Mass. 
 
 PEESBYTEEIAN (N. S.) 
 
 I congratulate you on your able and convincing treatise on " Classic Baptism." It if 
 thorough and original — the last a merit hardly to have been expected in a new work 
 on so old a controversy. I shall recommend it to our students. I trust you will gc 
 on with your labors. 
 
 Your last proposition (p. 354), expresses the result of classic usage, — which is all 
 
 you aim at in this volume 
 
 Henry B. Smith, D.D., Union Theological Seminary. 
 
 I thank you very heartily for "Classic Baptism;" a rare philological achieve- 
 ment, which ought to prove a quietus to sectarian strife, about the necessity of im- 
 mersion. I do not see that you have left anything to be said to clear the meaning 
 of PaTTTiZu, or how you can be answered ; and success here is the conclusion of the 
 matter. I marvel, with Professor Thayer, at the labor and ability with which you 
 have prosecuted your masterly discussion. 
 
 Thomas H. Skinner, D.D., Union Theological Seminary. 
 
 You have certainly shown that ^a-rTi^m does not, like BaTrrai, mean dip. 
 
 EoswELL D. Hitchcock, D.D., Union Theological Seminary. 
 
 In my humble judgment it is exhaustive, convincing, and irrefutable. I do not 
 see how any intelligent reader could fail to get the solution there of any doubt as to 
 the mode of baptism, or how any minister could fail to get the arguments needed to 
 refute the riiualism of our Baptist brethren. I deem it of the highest value to the 
 whole Church. It is worthy of all the commendation it has received. I do not see 
 "anything which strikes me as error, or imperfection, or which might be better put." 
 I hope you will go on to complete the Judaic and Johannic Baptisms. 
 
 ■ Wm. E. Moore, Pastor, Westchester, Pa. 
 
 You have done an excellent work for the Church in dissolving the fancied claims of 
 Xmmersionists to the support of the Classics. This has been long needed. You have 
 done the work thoroughly. Your acute analysis has brought out conclusions very 
 nearly like my own, written years ago and never yet read by any one. 
 
 W. EuFUS PowKKs, Lysander, N. Y. 
 
 I (and my associates, Professors Ballantine, Smith, and Evans) have read your 
 work with deep interest. I had supposed tUe classical word fia-^ri^oi leaned strongly 
 toward the Baptist view of the subject, but I cannot see how your position can possi- 
 be answered 
 
 D. H. Allen, D.D., Lane Theol. Sern., Ohio. 
 
PEESBTTEEIAN ^0. S.) 
 
 I fully concur in the favorable judgment of your work on Baptism wnich has been 
 expressed by Dr. Green. 
 
 Charles Hodge, D.D., Princeton Theological Seminary. 
 
 Tour book is one of great research and discrimination, and, contrary to ordinary 
 
 expectations of etymological controversy, animated and entertaining. It certainly 
 
 . disposes of the Baptist argument, in as far as that relics upon an unvarying mean 
 
 ing of the words in question. The reasoning, also, is of such a nature that the un 
 
 learned reader may follow it with understanding and pleasure. . . . 
 
 Irrespective of the theological question at stake, such a work is of great value in 
 view of lexicography. It is not often that we meet with such a careful exposition of 
 a word. I shall look with interest for your final conclusion. 
 
 James C. Moffat. D.D., Princeton Theological Seminary. 
 
 I regard your work as of great value on account of its complete collection of pas- 
 sages in which the contested words occur, and the searching examination to which 
 Baptist assertions in respect to them have been subjected. I know of nothing to take 
 its place in that portion of the controversy to which it belongs. The industry and 
 patient research displayed in it are above all praise. 
 
 W. Henky Gkeen, D.D., Princeton Theological Seminary. 
 
 i" examined very carefully your manuscript on Baptism. I was much interested 
 ia the discussion. The work evinces much industry and research. To me your po- 
 sitions seem to be well chosen and strongly fortified. I believe that the publication 
 of your work will be a valuable acquisition to theological literature. . . . 
 
 In my humble judgment, the issue reached is correct. 
 
 S. J. Wilson, D.D., Western Theological Seminary. 
 
 More and more of late our Baptist brethren have appealed to Philology. I have 
 wondered at this. There is no weaker point in the argument for their practice, as 
 Scapula's Lexicon would enable any one to see, as Dr. Eice in his debate with the 
 Eev. Alexander Campbell sufiiciently showed, and as Mr. Dale here proves beyond 
 all reasonable doubt in my mind. The work is very timely, as Dr. Conant's recent 
 work evinces. 
 
 Wm. S. Plummer, D.D., Columbia Theological Seminary. 
 
 I can truly say, that for thorough investigation, clear and logical discussion and 
 scholarly and discriminating exegesis, few works have ever afforded me as much un- 
 mingled satisfaction. Mr. Dale has succeeded most decidedly in overturning one of 
 the strongholds of Immersionists ; and while the course of reasoning and investiga- 
 tion is thorough and conclusive, the btyle, in courtesy and quiet humor, presents a 
 most incomparable specimen of polemical discussion. The book ought to have a wide 
 circulation among all who love truth rightly presented. I shall await with great 
 interest the other works promised on Judaic and Johannic Baptism. 
 
 B. M. Smith, D.D., Union Theological Seminary, Virginia. 
 
 So far as relates to all the leading terms pf the inquiry, you might with better rea- 
 son even than Ammonius name your tractate, IlepibiioC(ovKaLSta(pi:po}v Xifcui/; for I know of 
 nothing in any language which can compare with it in what Professor Williams has 
 so felicitously characterized as " the refined and subtle metaphysics frequently em- 
 ployed in tracing the derivation and transition of signification of words, and in ap- 
 plying the results to the words employed in the Baptistic controversy." I regard 
 all branches of the Church of Christ as laid under obligations to you. 
 
 Egbert W. Landis, D.D., Danville Theological Seminary. . 
 
 I send with this my best judgment of your great work You have left 
 
 nothing to be desired as to "Classic Baptism." So wide is the research, so thorough is 
 the analysis, as to entitle the work to be called an Encyelopcedla in this branch of 
 learning. I believe the general conclusion of the work to be inevitable. I rejoice 
 in its appearance. 
 
 Edward P. Humphrey, D.D., Danville Theological Seminary. 
 
My special thanks are dtte for the copy of your "Classic Baptism." I have read 
 It with uncommon interest. Your positions are maintained, it seems to me, with the 
 clearness and conclusiveness of demonstration. Our Baptist friends can do nothing 
 but unconditionally surrender /Jaartjcj — as modal. They are utterly routed — Gale, 
 Carson, Fuller, Conard, and all. 
 
 I sincerely hope that you will go on with your Baptismal labors, according to the 
 announcement in the first part. Your whole design, carried out with the success of 
 this portion, will make a work on Baptism without a parallel, and lay theology and 
 the Church under great obligations. 
 
 "Willis Lord, D.D., Northwestern Theological Seminary. 
 
 I have read, in part, " Classic Baptism," and I am delighted. Hope it will be fol- 
 lowed by the other volumes. 
 
 David McKinnet, D.D., Librarian Presb. Book Eooms, Pittsburg. 
 
 "What with the thoroughness of your research and the rigor of your analysis, you 
 have left our Baptist friends no foothold within the domain of Classic literature. 
 More than this, the admirable tone and temper of your exhaustive treatise cannot fail 
 to commend the work even to those who will here find one of their foundations so 
 effectively subverted. By all means go on with your inquiries and settle this question. 
 
 H. A. BoARDMAN, D.D., Philadelphia. 
 
 After a careful examination of your work, I can most cordially indorse the judg- 
 ment of my old friend and associate in Miami University, Prof. Moffat. Opinion." 
 may be answered, facts cannot. Your book is demonstration. 
 
 W. C. Anderson, D.D., 1st Presb. Church, San Francisco. 
 
 A really valuable book and a fine specimen of thorough philosophical analysis. A 
 capital book for our young men to study, as a specimen of the way in which the true 
 meaning of words is to be elicited. It has given me clearer and more definite views 
 and more especially shown the broad and firm ground of those views. 
 
 J. B. Eamsay, D.D., Lynchburg, Va. 
 
 A singularly astute and searching investigation. I have read it with that zest with 
 wnich 1 used to read the "Diversions of Purley." It is a centre shot to the very 
 heart of Baptist ritualism. If the bottom has not been knocked out of the Baptist 
 tub, it has been made too leaky to hold water enough to immerse anybody in. 
 
 Stuart Eobinson, D.D., Louisville, Kentucky. 
 
 UNITED PEESBTTEEIAN. 
 
 It becomes necessary to meet our Baptist brethren on their own ground. This you 
 have done. And by fair criticism and an appeal to the masters of the Greek lan- 
 guage, you have clearly demonstrated, that their argument in favor of immersion, 
 drawn from the alleged classical meaning of PairTl^cj, rests upon a foundation of sand. 
 
 John T. Pressly, Theological Seminary, U. P. 
 
 EEFOEMED PEESBYTEEIAN. 
 
 I regard " Classic Baptism" as a master- piece. The enlarged scope, the thorough- 
 ness, the candor, the excellent temper, and the sprightly wit, make it as agreeable 
 and interesting as it is exhaustive. So far as I am aware there is nothing equal to it. 
 Our Baptist brethren will, I think, find it to be unansioerable. 
 
 T. "W. J. "Wylie, D.D., Theological Seminary, Kef. Presb. 
 
 OHUECH OF SCOTLAND, CANADA. 
 
 I am delighted with your book. It seems to me to settle the guesiio vexaia. Irre- 
 fragable, to a free and unprejudiced mind, must be the conclusion reached in the 
 closing sentences of your work. Equal success in Judaic and .Johannic Baptism will 
 confer upon Ptedo-Baptist churches a benefit incalculable and lasting. I congratulate 
 you on the literary triumph whi^h, in the midst of pastoral anxieties and labor, you 
 have achieved. 
 
 John Jenkins, D.D., St. Paul's, Montreal. 
 
" Jewet.t arid Dale, 'whom nobody k)iows,' use heavy ffuiis.^^ 
 
 "Criticisms on Classic Baptism he takes occasion to gibbbt," Princeton Review. 
 
 "Far above any like work in English literature," . . Southerii Presb. Review 
 
 "Admirably arranged, transparently worded,'' .... Sumdord of the Cross. 
 
 "In the jiost gp:ntle and pleasant spirit," Christian Instructor. 
 
 "One of the must striking and effective of this age," . Episcopalian. 
 
 'It is a woNbEitFUL BOOK," W. Christian Advocate 
 
 ' His TWO VOLUMES REALLY MARK AN ERA IN THIS CONTROVERSY," American Presb. Revuw. 
 
 Southern Presbyterian Review, South Carolina. 
 
 This remarkable book has attracted much attention among American scholars. Its contents ar« 
 unique. They constitute a body of suggestive and most luminous hints, easily pursued to the overwhelm- 
 ing conclusion to which they point. It stands, as a controversial work, far above any we are acquainted 
 with in the whole i ange of Ensjlish literature upon this subject. It is old and it is new. It is trite and 
 it is original. It is short and it is thorough. It is moderate and it is conclusive. 
 
 Christian Observer andFbbe Christian Commonwealth, Kentucky. 
 If there is any wisdom in the maxim, "Fight the devil with fire," there is equal wi.sdom in Dr. 
 Dale's practice oi fighting the, Baptists with water. And never did steam fire-engine play its vigoroua 
 stream upon a mob to its scattering more effectually than Dr. Dale with the vigorous stream of hl.s water 
 criticism, upon those who have been so noisily assailing their brethren. .Judaic Baptism is every way 
 worthy of the author of Classic Baptism. It has the same excellent temper, the same remarkable genius for 
 philology, the same vigorous argument, the same remarkable scholarship and fine literary discrimination. 
 
 Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review, New Jersey. 
 
 . . . But Dr. Dale will not allow any shufBing; he holds them to the strict tTms of the bond, and 
 with a great amount of good-humored bantering, but with clinching force, shows that "dip" will not 
 answer in a single instance. From this primary, physical sense of ' intusposition," without limitation of 
 manner or duration, the word passed in classic Greek to a secondary use, that of describing a conditiot 
 of complete subjection to some controlling power or influence, particularly a ruinous or destructive sub- 
 jection. The word has reached a secondary sense which has passed beyond the mere region of trope and 
 conscious figure or figurative application, and has become a new and veritable meaning. The Baptists 
 endeavor to extract some image or emblem to sustain their theory, but Dr. Dale pertinaciously meets 
 them at every turn, and, in the most provoking manner holds the theory up to merited ridicule. The 
 fundamental idea in Judaic Baptism is the subjection of an object to some foreign controlling influence, 
 not, however, for its destruction, but for its purification and salvation. Dr. Dale has, in these volumes, 
 put the Baptists on the defensive, instead of merely repelling their attacks. His arf/uments are not to be 
 put aside by vituperation. The criticisms on his former volume he takes occa.sion to gibbet in the beginning 
 of this. These volumes constitute an armory which no minister can well afford to be without. Frank 
 and straightforward, never intentionally unfair, with an overplus almost of pleasant raillery, but without 
 harsh words and abusive epithets, these books are an important contribution to the (Sanri^d) controversy. 
 
 American Presbyterian Review, New York. 
 The previous work of Dr. Dale commanded very general attention, and fully sustained his positiona 
 as to the significance of /SoirriJ&j. Many Baptist critics were quite at a loss what to make of it, and several 
 dismissed it with evasive or abusive notice. Dr. Dale commences his present volume with a summary 
 view of their utterances, exposing the shallowness of their criticisms or the contemptuous ignorance which 
 they display. It is very evident that }ns conclusions are not to be set aside by any criticisms that have yet been 
 offered. He cites passages from the Jewish writers and from the Christian Fathers, and with the same 
 rare sagacity and keen discrimination of which he has shown himself to be so thorough a master, he 
 demonstrates that Pairri^oj cannot have the exclusive meaning ■' dip." He estahlislies his position, that all 
 through the Patristic interpretations of Jewish baptisms, it is written in characters so plain " that a way- 
 faring man, though a fool, need not err therein," that a dipping or a covering with water never enters into 
 their thoughts as a requisite for baptism. Indeed, the incongruity that results from a logical applica- 
 tion of "the theory" he opposes, becomes sometimes absolutely ludicrous. As an intellectual discipline, 
 this work will invite and reward study. His two volumes really mark an era in the controversy. 
 
 Central Presbyterian, Virginia. 
 
 We rejoice in the progress of this great undertaking. The present volume is in every respect equal to 
 the first. While Dr. Dale is necessarily controversial, we have never seen a more thoroughly good- 
 uatured antagonist. If he takes hold of Baptists and pinches them sorely under an iron grip, it is not 
 for the satisfaction of hurting them, but because it cannot be helped. One of the most pleasant parts of 
 the present volume is in the sixty pages in which he reviews the criticisms they have attempted on his 
 former work. It is a first-rate specimen of masterly, keen, but good-tempered controversy. He is always 
 gentlemanly, and, therefore, never descends to the use of ungentlemanly language, even when most 
 strongly provoked by its application to himself by others. This may be seen in the answer given to Prot 
 Kendrick. . . . All who furnish themselves with these volumes will be finely repaid. 
 
 Western Christian Advocate, Ohio. 
 
 We close our brief notice of Judaic Baptism, by saying it is a wonderful book. Get it and read it, and 
 you Will neither regret the time nor the money thus employed. 
 
 Advance, Illinois. 
 Baptists have long desired an adversary to grapple with the Greek terms. Dr. Dale is the man for 
 them. He insists on Greek, nothing but Greek. His conclusion is a bombshell in Vie Baptist camp. It has 
 brought out both respectful and vituperative answers. The work is able, thorough, and convincing. 
 
 The Pacific, California. 
 
 A year or more ago the Baptist world was astonished at the appearance of Classic Baptism. A second 
 edition was called for in four months. Its author received a Doctorate. We do not see how any one can 
 dispute the learning, thoroughness, and real critical ability shown in these volumes, nor how the con- 
 clusions reached can be impugned. When Prof. Jewett criticised the Baptist Bible, they asked, '■ Who is 
 this Jewett? " When Dr. Dale wrote Classic Baptism, he was said to be an "upstart," one "who had 
 spent hiB life in a country village." Jewett and Dale, " whom nobody knows," use pretty heavy guns I 
 
" Judaic Baptism is ivortky of the author of Classic Baptism. ' 
 
 "A TUORCCGHLY GOOD-NATURED ANTAGONIST," Central Presbyterian. 
 
 "A BOMBSHELL IN THE BAPTIST CAMP," Advance. 
 
 "Conclusions cannot be impugned," Pacific. 
 
 "Arms from head to foot against Immersionists," . . . . Standard of the Cross, 
 
 "Intellectual task inviting to the Scholar," .... Evangelist. 
 
 "This is a work for the age," Methodist Recorder. 
 
 "Complete armory for Scriptural Baptism," Presbyterian,. 
 
 Congregationalist and Boston Recorder, Mass. 
 
 Dr Dale attaches great importance to showing how the meaning "to purify" could originate. It is 
 of much greater importance to show that it did. in fact, originate. This fact Dr. Beecher and others bad 
 alreaay proved, and Dr. D,ale has added new evidence of great value. Judaic Baptism will be a valuable 
 storehouse of facts and evidence. 
 
 The Episcopalian, Pennsylvania. 
 Our expectations are fully realized in "Judaic Baptism." Sprinkling and pouring are proved to be 
 modes of baptizing. The importance of the deci.sions of this point cannot be overestimated. The extent 
 of research, the patience in invesiigation, the closeness of comparipon, and the candor and strength of 
 judgment make this treatise one of the most striking and effective which has appeared in this age. 
 
 Presbyterian, Pennsylvania. 
 This volume opens with some keen replies to criticisms on Classic Baptism. He simply lumps together 
 ft number of the abusive sentences of Dr. Kendrick, with which he filled his review in the Baptist Quarterly, 
 and lets them stand as condemning the whole article. He treats with great thoroughness all bapttsmB 
 spoken of by Jewish writers, inspired and uninspired. This volume will be more interesting to the mass of 
 readers than Classic Baptism. Beyond all question, Dr. Dale is furnishing a complete armory in behalf 
 of the Scriptural mode of baptism. 
 
 The Standard of the Cross, Ohio. 
 
 If any clergyman wishes to be clad from head to foot against all the sophistries of the Immersionists, 
 he has only to master this one book. Such stores of classical learning, so condensed and admirably 
 arranged and transparently worded, are seldom found packed away in a volume of 35U pages. It is no 
 wonder that the University of Penn.sylvania hastened to lay a Doctorate at the learned author's feet. 
 
 Religious Telescope, Ohio. 
 
 If any one wishes to read a work written in an interesting style, with clearness and ability, in oppo- 
 sition to able Baptist writers, he will find Judaic Baptism such a woik. It is a perfect feast for those 
 whose special delight is in polemics. 
 
 Chbistian Instructor and United Presbyterian, Penna. 
 Classic Baptism is, and the more it is studied the more it will be found to be, the book that will go 
 far to settle this question. It is written in the most gentle and pleasant spirit. A third edition has 
 already been called for. Judaic Baptism is a complete presentation of the subject. It is always marked 
 with peculiarly good temper. This work will be welcome, convincing, and eminently satisfactory. 
 
 Herald and Presbyter, Ohio. 
 No book of the age has been more highly commended than Classic Baptism. Judaic Baptism is des- 
 tined to enjoy a reputation equally flattering Ko man has equalled Dr. Dale in the thoroughness and 
 ability with which he has discussed the mode of baptism. Every theologian should /lave these two volume. 
 
 Christian Intelligencer, New York. 
 
 The author seems determined to give no quarter to our Baptist brethren. Those interested in the 
 Baptist controversy will, of course, examine for themselves the grounds of the author's argument. They 
 ■can scarcely fail, we think, if open to conviction, to acknowledge its correctness. An exclusive meaning 
 is the Baptist Gibraltar. Hence, we expect a lively controversy from this vigorous attack upon it. 
 
 Methodist Recorder, Ohio. 
 This is a work for the age. The positions claiming the same meaning for Pa-rrToi and Parri^ai, and dip 
 as the invariable meaning of (3 awrt^cii, are demonstrated to be impossible. Those who differ in sentiments 
 ATO fairly, kindly, and bravely met on their own chosen ground. The most learned in the land pronoanc« 
 
 it a MABT£BPIEC£. 
 
 The Evangelist, New York. 
 He shows himself a thorough master of his subject, and his discrimination of meanings and shades ol 
 meaning is itself a study which, even as an intellectual task, is inviting to the scholar. It is frequently 
 amusing to see how completely be turns the tables on his opponents, and how summarily he routs them 
 from their slmngholds. Dr. Dale insists that the word makes demand for a condition and not for a modal 
 act, and with this view every impartial and intelligent reader must accord. 
 
 Western Presbyterian, Kentucky. 
 Dr. Dale's method of investigation is the proper one. Opponents sre bound to show that he fias mis- 
 quoted or misinterpreted Oie wnlcrs to whom he appeals. If they decline to do this, they confess themselves 
 vanquished. If they make the attempt and fail, their cause is lost. We wait losee what Baptist scholars will 
 do. They have made a beginning. The Baptist Chriftian J'ress thinks the author to be an " ignoramus," 
 an "upstart," and a " lunatic.'' Prof. A. C Kendrick, D.D .if the BHptist Theological .-eminary, Rochester, 
 N. Y., thinks that he is "a philological thimble rigger." and a good many other equally complimentary 
 things. While the Nal.irmal Baptist thinks Dr. Dale is "an author of no small abil.ty," whose scholar-y 
 work "challenges our admiration." Wo think these volumes will compel the Itrini'-rsioaists to abandon 
 their stronghold. There are signs of this alreadj'. Dr. Kendrick, in the Baptid Quarterly, tosses dip 
 overboard, saying : "It is not a dipping that onr Lord instituted. Bnptizo never does engage to take its 
 subjects out of the water." Now, some honesi Baptist {dipper) will open his eyes at this, and ask. •• What, 
 then, are we to do? " Kendrick says, you must get out uf the water on your '■ normal muscular action.'' (!) 
 This is somerhiun for these who have thought that they knew what Baptizo meant — '•dip,and ruitking 
 but dip, through all Greek literature" — to think about. We leave it with them. 
 
T> 
 
 J J J J ) J ) I ) 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 JUDGMENT OF SCHOLAES IN ALL DENOMINATIONS. 
 
 '■'■Fraught with, humor and good humor." 
 
 "Thorough — Candid — Conclusive," Prop. Packard, Episcopalian. 
 
 "Vindication — Thorough — Overwhelming," . . . Prop. B'E.Kd, Dutch Reformed. 
 
 "Thorough — Exhaustive — Convincing," .... Prof. Lindsay, iVfe/A. Epismpal. 
 
 "Learned — Thorough — Decisive," Prof. Pond, Congregntionol. 
 
 "Sound, Jddicious, Conclusive," Prop. Coleman, PrKshyterian. 
 
 "Patient, Vigilant, Complete," Prof. Lord, Presfn/ffrian. 
 
 "Analytic, Exhaustive, Unique," President Edwards, P resb'yterian. 
 
 The judgment given hy these scholars is entirely independent ; no one having seen or 
 heard of that of the other. 
 
 Dk. J. F. Berg, Prof. Theol., New Brunswick, New Jersey. 
 TVhen I say that Judaic Baptism is as thorouaih and overwhelming a yindication of our mode of baptism, 
 B= Classic Baptism was conclusive as to the meaning of PairTi^o}, I can express no higher appreciation of yonr 
 Work. 
 
 Dr. James Strong, Drew Theol. Sent., New Jersey. 
 
 The order which you have pursued is the only just one in the case. Your argument, as developed in 
 Classic and Judaic Baptism, I consider as perfectly conclusive. 
 
 Dr. E. Pokd, Theol. Sem., Bangor, Maine. 
 I have read the book throuaih with great interest. Like the previous work, it is learned, thorough, ex- 
 hau.-itive, and decisive. It seems to me that, of ffaTrTii^o} and its derivatives, nothing more need be said. 
 The doctrine of exclusive immersion is refuted. 
 
 Dk. Willis Lord, Theol. Sem., Chicago, Illinois. 
 Judaic Baptism is of the same remarkably analytic and exhaustive character as Classic Baptism. I can 
 scarcely conceive of anything more unique than such a triad as Classic, Judaic, and Christian Baptism, or 
 inore likely to be a permanent benefaction to the coming generation. 
 
 Dr. J. W. Lindsay, Theol. Sem., Boston, Mass. 
 I have been deeply interested in examining Juda4c Baptism. ITour treatment of the subject is so thorough, 
 exhaustive, and convincing, that biblical scholars must feel you have placed them under great obligation. 
 
 Dr. J. Packard, Theol. Sem., Alexandria, District of Columbia. 
 In maintaining that flaTrri^o} always means to immerse or dip totally under water, Baptists have main, 
 tained their ground by the ■most forced and strained interpretation, and in defiance of usage, and with the 
 greatest violence to language. Dr. Dale has determined the usage of /Janrijo) by Jewish writers in the Sep- 
 tuagint, Apocrypha, Josephus, &c., and has, we think, shown conclusively that the word means to purify 
 ceremonially. His works deserve a place in every clergyman's library. 
 
 Db. S. J. Wilson, Theol. Sem., Allegheny, Penna. 
 I have examined the use of £i; by Josephus with the exposition, pp. 92-95 ; also, as used by the Apostle 
 
 Panl, p. 305 ; and by Origen, p. 320. I believe your interpretation is correct I am more than ever 
 
 impressed with the labor and research which your book evinces, and of the value of the contribution to 
 theological literature which you have made. 
 
 Dr. T. W. J. Wtlie, Theol. Sem., Philadelphia, Penn. 
 I wish that all who can feel the power of truth were baptized with the truth which your book presents. 
 Equal in argument and in spirit to its predecessor, it can have no higher encomium. These works mark an 
 era in the discussion of this subject. Henceforth I hope the discussion will be put on the ground where you 
 have placed it. Tnere the defence is impregnable. 
 
 Dk. Charles Elliott, Theol. Sem., Chicago, Illinois. 
 A very able and exhaustive treatise. Your former treatise on Classic Baptism is, I think, a demonstration 
 of the point which you attempt to establish. In regard to the use of £15 by Josephus, p. 92, and the like use 
 by Paul, p. 305, and Origen, p. 320, 1 refer you to Harrison's work on Greek Prepositions. Prof. Harrison 
 fully supports your view on p. 211, and establishes it by numerous quotations. See. also, Jeirs Qrammar, 
 II.. p. 297, s. V. £ij. Your argument to prove a secondary meaning of 0anri^txh 88 used by Origen, p. 224, 1 
 consider as conclusive. You may say with Joab: "I have fought against Rabbah, and have taken the city 
 of waters." 
 
 Dr. L. Coleman, La Fayette College, Easton, Penna. 
 The Judaic, like the Classic Baptism, is in my estimation a marvel of industry and patient research, 
 sound, judicious, and conclusive. These two volumes will remain an exhaustive the.«aurus of authorities 
 and argument on the vexed question of the mode of baptism, an invaluable aid to all who may be drawn 
 inio the hapless controversy. 
 
 President Jon. Edwards, D.D., Baltimore, Maryland. 
 T know of no such works on baptism as these. 1 have rarely in any controversial literature met with 
 urgumentation so sound, patient, persistent, vigilant, and complete, while, at the same time, so frsnght 
 with humor and good humor. You have made it abundantly manifest that " the theory " results from a 
 superficial investigation compounded with the anachronism of interpreting ancient and oriental by modern 
 and occidental customs. 
 
"It deals a blow from which 'the theory^ can never recover.^' 
 
 *N«5BLE ClTRISflAN BEARING TOWARD YOUR OPPONENTS," BiSHOP L. ScOTT, D.D. 
 
 " Recommended TO STUfiRNTS AS ABLEST IN THE LANGUAGE," Prof. J. T. Presslv, D.D. 
 " All the world acknowledge your great success," President A. D. Smith, D.D 
 
 "A PRODIGY OF philological LABOR," PrOF. T. H. SkiNNER, D.D. 
 
 "Beyond the possibility op successful assault," . . Prof. S. Yerkes, D.D. 
 "You have fought and taken the city of waters," Prof. C. Elliott, D.D. 
 "The testimonials are not at all exaggerated," . Rt. Rey. T. M. Clark, DD 
 
 Rev. L. Scott; D.D. , Bishop of the Mftkodist Episcopal Church, DeIjA-WAJib. 
 I am more than pleased with .luilaic Baptism. I am dflighted. Your patient toil, your discrimina- 
 tion, your skilful uianaaiemeut of materials so various and so vast, your thoroughnnss even in minutias, 
 and your noble Christian bearing toward your opponents, fill me with admiratiou. The work is the most 
 scholarly, thorough, and .'satisf.ictory discussion of Judaic Baptism I have ever seen. Indeed, I know of 
 nothing that can be compared with it in its e-xhaustive completeness. It deals a blow from which the 
 theory can never recover. 
 
 Rt. Rev. Thomas M. Clark, D.D., 5w/jo;;o/ Rhode Island. 
 
 Tour work on Jud.aio Baptism richly deserves attention. I have mad^ myself sufficiently acquainted 
 with it to be satisfit'd of i_t^ very great valu-^. I do not tbink th tt any of the testimonials given in its 
 favor are at all exaggerated. 
 
 Rt. Rev. George D. Cummins, D.D., Assistant Bishop of Kentucky. 
 
 I have been deeply interested in your work on .Judaic Baptism, and regard it as an e.xceedingly valua- 
 ble contribution to the literature of this important subject. It is just the work that is most needed in 
 this region. I trust it may have an extensive circulation among us. 
 
 President Asa D. Smith, D.D.. Dartmouth College, New Hampshire. 
 Such a confluence of laudatory and approving voices have fallen upon your ear that mine may be 
 lost in it. You need no word of praise from me. The learninj. ability, and industry which reveal them- 
 selves at a glance, all the world are acknowledging. I congratulate you on this great success. 
 
 William Blackwood, D.D., Philadelphia, Penna. 
 
 Dr. Dale has produced the most learned, accurate, and thoroughly unanswerable argument on the 
 point on which his book bears, that the world has ever seen. Dr. Dale has the satisfaction to see his book 
 taking rank in the libraries of educated men. 
 
 John T. Pressly, D.D., Theol. Sem., Alleghany, Penna. 
 I have just finished my lectures on the subject of bapti.'sm, and hnve recommend.d your work to the 
 students as the ablest, on the meaning of the word, in the English language. 
 
 President Q. Wilson McPhaill, D.D. , Davidso7i College, N. Carolina. 
 Ton bring cumulative evidence to the truth of your previous proposition, .-md show conclusively that 
 Judaic Baptism is effected by washing the hands, by sprinkling, and by pouring. In fsict, after reading 
 your book, I am led more thaa ever to doubt whether baptism was ever performed by immersion after 
 the manner of the Baptists. Their case seems to invoU-e the singular error of contending for almost the 
 only possible mode in which baptism was never performed. Certainly, after candidly reading Judaic 
 Baptism, Baptists must be satisfied if they can find sufficient evidence to show that total immersion is one of 
 the various allowed modes. 
 
 Stephen Yerkes, D.D., Danville Theol. Sem., Kentucky. 
 
 You are giving the question by far the most thorough and scholarly sifting it has ever received. Your 
 works are an honor to the scholarship of the country, and a lasting monument to your patience of research, 
 your skill in philology, and your power and vigilance in the conduct of a difficult and intricate argument. 
 I believe you have established, b-yond the possibility of successful assault, the position taken in this vol- 
 ume. And as the conclusion here reached is but the logical development of the general proposition main- 
 tained in Classic Baptism, and is itself so indubitably certain, it is confirmatory of that proposition. Com- 
 plete your original plan, and thus, by a third volume, crown your admirable contributions to the theo- 
 logical literature of the age. 
 
 Thomas H. Skinner, D.D., Union Theol. Sem., New York. 
 Judaic Baptism is a very searching book and requires close reading. It is a prodigy of philologica. 
 labor. In English literature it is without a parallel. When or where was so much written on A word? 
 The learning, the logic, the style, the spirit, and, I may add, the effectiveness of your book, give it an esti- 
 mation unsurpassed by any book of the same class, that I have ever read. The narrowness of our Baptist 
 brethren has nothing to rest on, and I think they will renounce it. But other topics beside baptism are 
 illustrated by your book. Noone can intelligently read it without being indebted to you for enlargement, 
 if not tor correction of his views, on not a few points of high importance. I congratulate you on your great 
 success as an author. May the Lord hold you as a star in His right hand, and cause you to shine more 
 and more brightly to the glory of His holy name 1 
 
 Rt. Rev. J. Johns, D.D., Bishop o/ Virginia. 
 Your work has, indeed, commended itself to our ablest biblical scholars. I promise myself much 
 pleasure and profit from a careful study of its valuable contents. I have no doubt that the happy influ- 
 ence of the volume will more than compensate you for the time and labor bestowed on its preparation, 
 and hope that it will encourage you to make the church yet more largely your debtor. 
 
 Rev. S. Bowers, Bedford, Indiana. 
 With great interest have I both read and studied " Classic Baptism." In my humble judgment it 
 will do more toward settling the question of mode than any other uninspired book yet published. 
 
 Rev. S. F. Milliken, Morrison, Illinois. 
 I am under ten thousand obligations to you for your Classic Baptism. 
 
GERMAN EEFOEMED. 
 
 I thank you for your scholarly work on Baptism. It is very evident, on a cursory 
 glance, that you have bestowed a vast amount of labor and research on your book, 
 and every theologian must wish you health and strength to finish the two other vol- 
 umes, both in the interest of truth and for the honor of American scholarship. I 
 hope to have leisure, after awhile, to revise my volume of the History of the Apos- 
 tolic Church, and then I shall revert to your labors with interest and pleasure. 
 
 ..Philip Schaff, D.D., Professor, &c. 
 
 Cause for serious complaint has been given by theologians and ecclesiastical histo- 
 rians by concessions far beyond philological and archeological fact. Your able and 
 thorough treatise has confirmed my convictions on this point. Baptists have pro« 
 fessed a willingness to stand or fall by their interpretation of /SajrrtCo). Your work 
 will put their integrity to a severe test. I had thought the philological argument 
 exhausted. " Classic Baptism" shows that the material has been but meagerly used 
 and not to the best advantage. 
 
 J. H. A. BoMBEKGEE, D.D., Philadelphia. 
 
 OOLLEaES. 
 
 The most elaborate and exhaustive discussion of the classic use of the words ffarra 
 »nd Panri^M, with the corresponding terms in the Latin language, that has fallen un- 
 der my notice ; evincing tireless research, conscientious thoroughness and candor, 
 with acute discrimination and subtle analysis in the investigation of these contro- 
 verted terms. 
 
 Lyman Coleman, D.D., Lafayette College. 
 
 . . . It is the most elaborate discussion of a single word that I have ever seen. 
 It interested me much more than I expected. It is full of subtle analysis ; but it 
 is all so perspicuous and earnest that it holds the attention throughout. . . . 
 
 Fran. A. March, Lafayette College. 
 
 The main point of the treatise, the specific use of the word contended for, seems 
 to me to be made out with perfect clearness and conclusiveness, so as to settle the 
 question, in as far as the question rests upon merely philological grounds. 
 
 Another feature that struck me, was the refined and subtle metaphysics frequently 
 employed in tracing the derivation and transition of signification of words, and in 
 applying the results to the words involved in the Baptistic controversy. . . . 
 
 Apart from its direct relation to the great Baptistic controversy, I think that the 
 work would be regarded by all competent readers as possessing great interest and 
 value as a contribution to philology. I doubt whether there exists another so long 
 and elaborate investigation of a single word. 
 
 D. E. Williams, "Western University. 
 
 I am glad, for the truth's sake, that your book is so well and ably constructed. I 
 cannot too highly express my sense of the patience, good humor, sound logic, and 
 breadth of view which characterize it. If your promised continuations in the Judaic 
 and Johannic branches of investigation be as satisfactory, you must be congratulated 
 as furnishing the most complete, unanswerable, and at the same time, amiable treat- 
 ise the Church possesses on this point. 
 
 J. Edwards, D.D., Prest. of Washington and Jefierson College. 
 
 . . . I have sometimes spent an hour upon a line of Greek, but here are yonrs 
 spent upon a word. The result seems to me perfectly conclusive as to the use and 
 meaning of the words under discussion. . . . 
 
 H. C. Cameron, Professor of Greek, Princeton College. 
 
American Peesbttebian and Theological Review. 
 
 "After two or more centuries of controversy upon a pintle word, who would have expected a truly origiual 
 and deeply iut' i fating volume upon it? Yet this is what Mr. Dale has given to the world, takinc: up for the 
 present, only the clas.^ic usage of (iaiTTi^ai, to be followed by similar treatises on Judaic and .lohannic Bap- 
 tisms. He comes to the subject from new points of view, with the largest philoIoL'ica! inductions, and the 
 acutest critici-<ms and inferences. As a philological study, it is a rare work ; in its bnariii^s on the Baptist 
 controversy, it has a deep theological interest. The best arguments of all the noted Baptist writers are 
 thoroughly examined. Dr. Carson fares badly in this process, and Dr. Conant wiil have to write a new 
 edition of his learned treatise." 
 
 Methodist Home Journal. 
 
 " The learned author divides his treatise into three parts. Part I. discusses Baptist views as presented by 
 eighteen of their ablest writers. Part II. discusses the meaning of Bapto, Tinuo, and Dip. Part III. is a 
 discussion of Baptizo, Mfeqo, and Immerse. Quotations are made from twenty vine haXnx &nA seventy-two 
 Greek authors. From this mass of material, thoroughly analyzed and classified, the meaning of Baptizo is 
 eliminated." 
 
 Presbttekian. 
 
 "While we were aware that Baptists had not thoroughly mastered the literature of the subject, we were 
 never so fully convinced of the fact as since the appearance of this treatise. The author deals most fairly 
 with his opponents, never concealing their strongest positions, but coming up to their Intrenchments, as- 
 saults them boldly, and by turning them, shows their weakness. Mr. Dale, by an exhaustive philological 
 examination, has shown that classic authority is against the Baptists. His book is a thesaurus on the BQb- 
 ject, and will be invaluable to the ministry." 
 
 Christian Obsebter and Witness. 
 
 "This masterly work investigates the meaning of these words as used by more than a hundred Greek 
 Latin, and English writers, philosophers, historians, poets, and theologians. The work has been one of vast 
 labor and for a rich prize. It is an inquiry for truth, tbuih that will in due time be appreciated by millions 
 of the redeemed of earth." 
 
 American Presbyterian. 
 
 " Mr. Dale here meets the enemy on their own field, shows by elaborate and exact investigation, that the 
 researches made by them for centuries lead to results hostile to their own theory, and spoils the Bgyptians, 
 condemning them out of their own mouths." 
 
 Biblical Repertory and Princeton Review. 
 
 "The allegation that Pavri^o) has but one meaning in the whole history of the Greek language, that 
 mode is essentially denoted by it, that it always signifies lo dip, is most effectually disposed of. It is shown 
 that Baptist writers are at war with one another upon this subject, which, according to their mode of view- 
 ing it, is so important. It is shown still further, by an actual exhibition and analysis of the passages in 
 classic authors in which the words in question occur, that it is quite impossible to attribute to them any 
 such sense in a multitude of cases. We might not agree with the author in every particular of his discus- 
 sion, but we do not hesitate to say that he has rendered a valuable service to the cause of truth. We shall 
 look with interest for the remaining volumes of the series examining the usage of these words in Jewish 
 writings, viz., Josephus, Philo, Ac, and, also, the character of the baptism of John." 
 
 Central Presbyterian. 
 
 "This is by far the most important contribution to the subject which has been made during the present 
 century. The author has long concentrated a mind of fine critical power upon this theme, and established 
 certain conclusions, which, we venture to predict, will give abundance of trouble to those opposing his 
 views for many a year to come. There are few who will not feel surprised at the strength and value of the 
 results which Mr. Dale has brought out. Difiiculties, mountain high, are piled on the Baptist theory. Their 
 doctrine of classic usage is fairly weighed and found wanting. The author is eminently fair in dealing with 
 hia opponents. He is always respectful, good natured, and modest. This volume will be followed by two 
 others on Judaic and Johannic Baptisms. We shall look fnr them with great interest. This long contro- 
 verted question has fallen into the hands of a brother who is able to explore it to the foundations. We 
 earnestly advise all who desire to read the ablest treatise 07i the suhject which has yet been given in the English 
 language (and, for aught we can tell, in any other), to purchase this book, and to digest it well, as preliminary 
 to others to come. Should they equal this, Mr. Dale will bo entitled to the thanks of the Church, and held 
 as ' facile princeps ' among all Americans who have written upon the subject." 
 
 Northwestern Presbyterian. 
 " The inquiry is made in a calm, critical, and candid spirit, which even his opponents must acknowledge. 
 If fair, thorough, and candid criticism has ever settled anything beyond reasonable doubt, it would seem 
 that this author has established his conclusion. Mr. Dale shows himself master of the whole field, not only 
 of the Greek literature part of it, but of the Baptist literature part of it, and also of the reasoning and po- 
 lemic part of it. This scholarly and masterly work is to be followed by two other volumes, embracing 
 Judaic and Johannic Baptisms, and Christie and Patristic Baptisms. Our author has done enough to con- 
 vince us that he is thoroughly competent to anything which this discussion may demand. No person can 
 afford to do without this work who would be thoroughly posted on the question." 
 
 An elegant Volume—" Equal to a London Book." Octavo, pp. 354.— Price, $3.50. 
 uJ' Clergymen and Teachers, $3.00. 
 
 WM. RUTTER & CO., Publishers, 
 
 Seventh & Cherry Streets, Philadelphia, 
 
Christio and Patristio Baptism. 
 
 The Inquiry into the meaning of ffaTrriW, as determined hy usage through a THOUSAND YEAKS, and 
 as that meaning bears on Christian baptism, is now completed. 
 
 Classic Baptism shows that [iaizTisoi demands a thorough change op condition for its object: 1. 
 By intusposition (usually within a fluids by any form of act, without limitation of time; 2. Without 
 intusposition, by any contro"lling, penetrating, pervading, and therefore assimilating influence, however 
 applied, and without limitation of time. 
 
 Judaic Baptism shows the same primary and secondary meanings in relation to ships sunk and men 
 drunk ;nn6 also, the application of the secondary meaning to ceremonially purifying religious rites, 
 whereby is secured a new specifically changed condition and meaning — to purify ceremonially. ■ 
 
 Johannic Baptism abandons the use of the primary meaning within the sphere of physics, but intro- 
 duces it in a new and ideal sphere, by representing the soul as passing into a spiritual element— repent- 
 ance, remission of wi,?— under the influence of the Holy Spirit, and by a rite in which water (occupying 
 the position of symbol agency) symbolizes, by its purifying nature, this thoroughly changed spiritual 
 condition. The water in its use has no dependence whatever on /SaTrri^co. 
 
 Christic Baptism shows the same rejection of the physical sphere, and presents the Lord Jesus 
 Christ (the slain Lamb of God, whose atoning blood cleanseth from all sin) as the ideal element, by 
 passing into which the spiritual condition of the soul is thoroughly changed, and also, a rite in which 
 water (still in the position of symbol agency) symbolizes, by its purifying nature, this purified spiritual 
 condition. This baptism into the Lord Jesus is preparative for and causative of the further and ulti- 
 mate real baptism into the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 
 
 Patristic Baptism shows outside of the religious sphere the same meanings as in Classic and Judaic 
 Baptism, and within the religious sphere the same ideal use as in Johannic and Christic Baptism. It 
 departs from them, however, by merging symbol in the real baptism, and making the water co-active 
 with the Holy Spirit in effecting the real baptism. It also exhibits PaTrri^o) (having absorbed the orig- 
 inal phrase) with the acquired raeamng— to purify spiritually. 
 
 [The following extract was not designed for publication. But as these volumes are from a " country 
 pastor " for pastors, and this pastor " one of the best gospel preachers in the world " (as recently 
 declared by a leading periodical in a critical notice on " Discourses of Redemption ") testifies that they 
 may be of service to the class for whom they were especially designed, I venture to print it.] 
 
 "Ought to be true." 
 
 "I have been looking forward with great interest and high expectation to your Cheistic Baptism, for 
 which Classic, Judaic, and Johannic Baptism had whetted my appetite. I welcome it because of the 
 gratification I feel in seeing how an argument thus cumulating step by step would at last culminate 
 with the greatest power. I never really perceived the greatness of the issues involved in this question 
 until after I had read your books. Distaste for questions of ritual and disgust with the clatter about 
 ' 0airTL(,a^ and 'dip' turned my attention from the subject. In reading your sheets I have felt all the 
 while a great longing, amid pressing duties, for a solid week or two with nothing else to think about 
 but a thorough investigation of the subject. . . , Allow me to say with the greatest sincerity that I feel 
 under great obligations to you for this volume. I had read your previous volumes with great interest 
 and felt that you had eflectually ' knocked the bottom out ' of the theory (ofttimes so dogmatically and 
 arrogantly thrust upon the Christian world) of baptism as an act, and that act a dipping and nothing 
 but a dipping. Bat with a much profounder interest have I read this application of the results of your 
 previous investigation to the interpretation of the New Testament Christian Baptism. I have too little 
 time for examination to justify me in pronouncing very confidently as to many of the details of your 
 expositions. But I feel confident that in the general results of your investigation, showing that the 
 real baptism of the soul by the Holy Ghost into Jesus Christ through the instrumentality of repentance 
 and faith is the primary idea of the New Testament 'Baptize' and 'Baptism,' and that the ritual baiv 
 tisra with water is the mere secondary meaning to be taken as the meaning only when the context 
 plainly connected water with the word — you have truly found the mind of the Spirit. 
 
 " I am persuaded that any one reading the New Testament with the key which you have furnished 
 will find the haziness and mists that have always hung over some of the most vital statements of the 
 way of salvation under the too current idea of baptism as primarily ritual, all cleared away ; and, 
 whether such an one may be able to follow you in your nice philological arguments or not, he will feel 
 that your conclusions oiir/ht to be true, since they so fully and clearly explain what, on the too current 
 theory, is confused and inexplicable. In preaching from the passage: — ' He that believeth and is bap- 
 tized shall be saved,' with your key to explain the apparent disagreement between this and the previous 
 statement of the terms by Jesus : — ' He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life,' I found that 
 the people were greatly struck with it, and had many difficulties relieved by it ; especially that of appa- 
 rently a mere ritual element being introduced into the terms of salvation. Your general method of 
 handling the subject is very effective ; a less polemic treatment would have prevented your showing so 
 clearly a thorough acquaintance with what the most reliable Biblical critics have said to the contrary 
 of your expositions, and pointing out their failures to relieve the Scriptures from the confusion and 
 haziness that the current ideas impose upon their language. Your method involves much repetition, 
 but I do not yet see that you could have avoided that without impairing the force and clearness of 
 your argument. 
 
 "I assure you that no one in the Church feels under greater obligation to you for your noble works, 
 even if you are (as one of your Metropolitan Baptist critics says) only a ' Country Pastor.' 
 
 Yours truly, " Stuart Robinson." 
 
Judgment of Scholars. 
 
 "SCHOIAELY, ABFiE, A2^D OVERWHELMING," StUART ROBINSON, D D. 
 
 "Surprised AT THE EXTENT OP STUDY," . Prof. J. Packard, D.D. 
 
 " A SCHOLARLY ESSAY AND OF MUCH VALUE," PeOF. PHILIP SCHAFF, D.D. 
 
 "You ARE MAKING THOROUGH WORK," PrOF. TAYLER LeWIS. 
 
 " Incomparable IN THOROUGHNESS, CANDOR, ACCEPTABILITY," . . . . Prof. W. F. Warren, D.D. 
 "Noble contribution to oue polemics, so calm, so spiritual, so 
 
 IN keeping with the whole christian system," Jonathan Edwards, D.D. 
 
 Stuart Robinson, D.D , Louisville, Kentucky. 
 
 " I have read Christic Baptism with much profit, as well as pleasure to myself. I have not been 
 able, through pressure of other duties, to go into a critical examination of several interpretations that 
 are new to me, of leading passages of the New Testament, setting forth the way of Salvation. It 
 appears to me that your interpretations evince, in a remarkable degree, a self-evidencing power that 
 carries conviction with it. For they certainly relieve these passages of the obscurity and perplexities 
 that attach to them under any other'exposition that I have read. Your philological argument con- 
 cerning the signification of 'I?aptize' and ' Baptism,' as primarily denoting the real spiritual baptism 
 of the soul, and only secon'tarily denoting ritual baptism, is scholarly, able, and overwhelming. Your 
 book should be in the hands of all our ministry." 
 
 Professor H. Bannister, D.D., Garrett Theological Institute, Illinois. 
 
 "I have not had as much opportunity for a close and critical study of Christic Baptism as I could 
 desire; but, what examination I have given, requires me to say lam very much pleased with your 
 work. Classic Baptism prepared me to expect much and well of what should follow. Such a work is 
 much needed among our ministry." 
 
 President W. F. Warren, D.D., Boston Universily, 3Iassachusetts. 
 
 " From the terms of your invitation, to read and pass judgment, I feel at liberty to use all frankness 
 in my communication. The portion I have read strikes me as of remarkable excellence, both as to 
 matter and manner. Your allusions to our Baptist brethren are in good taste, and in a thoroughly 
 Christian spirit, while your expose of the deficiencies of their premises and conclusions is very happy. 
 Some points I should wish to consider very carefully before accepting; but, in the main, I regard the 
 treatise as a very valuable one. I doubt if anything has bsen written in America comparable with it 
 in thoroughness, caador, and acceptability to all Poedobaptist Christians." 
 
 Professor J. Packard, D.D., Epis. Theo. Sem., Alexandria, Virginia. 
 
 " I consider Christic Baptism a valuable contribution to our literature on that subject. I cannot 
 quite agree with you in your exegesis of some passages. I must understand the ftajotomir or as Tre- 
 gelles' text has it, having baptized them, &c., of Matt. 28 : 19 as literal and referring to the initiatory 
 sacrament of baptism, as the mode of admission into the Christian church. 'In the name,' etc., as a 
 summary of the faith, and as signifying that they were enlisted into the service of the Trinity; while 
 it is not necessarily a prescribed form of baptism, it very naturally came to be used as such. 
 
 " It is a peculiarity of N. T. Greek which adds iv to the instrumental dative vSan, iv viari (Butt- 
 man's N. T. Gram. p. 182). I agree with you that in Rom. 6 : baptism is put for what was signified by it. 
 In John 3 : 5 the negative form is so peremptory and universal that it excludes from salvation all not 
 baptized and therefore (not mentioning other reasons) the sacrament of baptism is not referred to. I 
 have no doubt that your work will promote the truth of the Gospel." 
 
 Professor W. J. Beecher, D.D., Theo. Sem., Auburn, New York. 
 
 " I have been accustomed to suppose that Jesus owed an outward allegiance to that particular move- 
 ment in the kingdom of God in which his lot was cast — the mission of John, and in token of this he 
 received John's baptism. This does not exclude the other and grander meaning of the baptism pre- 
 sented in your book. Your argument on 'in the Holy Ghost ' certainly makes out a strong case in 
 favor of your view. I see no point where the construction you propose will not meet the requirements 
 of the case. Yet there is another view. . . Baptismmthe personal Holy Ghost into the remission of sins, 
 that is a baptism in which the personal Holy Ghost searches and interpenetrates every part of the being 
 of a man, and so brings him into Christ, seems to me an idea so full of godly meaning that I am loth to 
 give it up. In this use, of course, 'in ' does not denote envelopment, or modal act of any kind, but only 
 a specific kind of instrumentality. [Such agency of the Holy Ghost is that which I would inculcate. — D.] 
 
 "Most of the points in the baptism of the tiOOO and of Saul aro well taken, and yet I am not quite 
 convinced of the absence of ritual baptism in those cases. . . . I hope that our age may produce scholars 
 who may investigate each point of theological science as faithfully and as successfully as you have 
 investigated baptism." 
 
 Jonathan Edwards, D.D., (late) President of Washington and Jefferson Colleges. 
 
 "Your work has baptized me. I have never before so clearly (or clearly at all) seen my way out of 
 ritualistic confusion and entanglement. I am very favorably impi-essed with your argument, and, for 
 aught I now recall of its material and its processes, am convinced by it. At my leisure I shall review 
 and reflect upon it, but at present it strikes me as being not merely ingenious, but highly probable. It 
 is a noble contribution to our polemics, and at the same time so calm, so spiritual, so in keeping with 
 the whole Christian system, that I found the perusal eminently edifying. And when I reached the end 
 I was ready with all my heart to join in the Doxology. 
 
 " I have read your works on this subject from the beginning. Receive, dear Brother, my congratula- 
 tions that by the Lord's grace you have been enabled to do such a work and so well, for sound learning 
 and for truth." 
 
Judgment of Scholars. 
 
 " BAIITIZEIN EIS relates to an ideal element," Chancellok Crosby. 
 
 " Complete change in the Baptist controversy," Professor Brown. 
 
 " Permanent place in American Theology," President Hurst. 
 
 " Crowning conclusion in ability of argument," Professor Smith. 
 
 "Truly a work of immense research," President Woolsey. 
 
 " Sooner or later become ecumenical," President Lord. 
 
 Chancellor Howard Crosby, Neio York University, N. Y. 
 
 " Examining your book is like reading an encyclopsedia. I think you successfully show that in 
 Christie Baptism the water is a 'symbol agency.' ... I agree with you that (iaTzrisSLv sig relates to an 
 ideal element in the New Testament. . . . Your books are not treatises, but ihesaureses, and show a pro- 
 digious amount of labor and care, for which you deserve the thanks of all Christian men." 
 
 Professor P. Schaff, Union Theo. Sem., New York. 
 " I looked hastily over your proofs, which certainly are a scholarly essay and of much value." 
 
 Professor S. J. Wilson, Western Theo. Sem., Pennsylvania. 
 
 " Your argument steadily increases in interest and in power. I am surprised at the amount of 
 labor and research which you have bestowed on the subject." 
 
 Professor S. Yerkes, Danville Theo. Sem., Kentucky. 
 
 " No competent person can doubt for a moment the scholarly and thorough treatment of Christie and 
 Patristic Baptism. Whatever differences of opinion may obtain touching some of the difficult points 
 you discuss, even your opponents, if at all candid, must admit the learning and ingenuity displayed in 
 the conduct of the argument. ... I cannot, myself, accept your interpretation of the Great Commis- 
 sion. A more protracted study of your exegesis might change my views; but, at present, I am obliged 
 to dissent. But while candor requires me to say this, it also requires me to say, that I consider Christie 
 and Patristic Baptism a work of uncommon merit ; and that I verily believe you have rendered most 
 important services to truth and sound learning, and to the Church of Christ. It will take time to learn 
 their effect. But I shall be mistaken if they do not exert a far greater and more radical influence on 
 this qucesHo vexala than anything which has preceded your treatises." 
 
 Professor S. C. Bartlett, Chicago, Theo. Sem., Illinois. 
 
 " I wish to express to you my recognition of the greatness of the labor you have performed in Christie 
 and Patristic Baptism, and of the important bearing of the facts and arguments you have presented in 
 settling the question — What is Christian Baptism?" 
 
 Professor I. A. Brown, Lutheran Theo. Sem., Gettysburg, Penna. 
 
 "I find your discussion eminently discriminating, and your distinctions carefully drawn. It 
 requires as much care to fully master your discussion as to master a standard work in metaphysics. . . . 
 Your volumes make a complete change in the Baptist controversy. You have fairly put the Baptists 
 on the defensive." 
 
 President J. F. Hurst, Drew Theo. Sem., Neiv Jersey. 
 
 "I must acknowledge my great indebtedness for your masterly work on ' Christie Baptism.' You 
 cover the entire subject. Your extensive researches, your profound sympathy with the theme, and 
 your method of treatment, have enabled you to produce a work, which not only meets a great want, 
 but will, I trust, occupy a permanent place in American Theology. I congratulate you on your success." 
 
 President T. D. Woolsey, Yale College, Connecticut. 
 
 " Accept my thanks for Christie and Patristic Baptism. It is truly a work of immense research. After 
 examination of Matt. 28 : 19 and your development of your view (during as much time as I could spare 
 when I happened to be very busy; I am obliged to say that I must, at present, see ritual baptism* in it." 
 
 W. Hamilton, D.D., Head Master Belfa.it Academy, Ireland, and Professor Hanover College, Ind. 
 
 "Your books, in my mind, settle the question beyond all reasonable dispute. They must, in due 
 
 time, revolutionize public sentiment on the subject Your method of attacking point after point, 
 
 preparatory to a grand assault upon the central position, is resistless. Your four volumes form an 
 encyclopedia of knowledge on the subject without which no inquirer for the future can pretend to 
 investigate the ordinance of Baptism." 
 
 President Willis Lord, Wooster University, Ohio. 
 
 "Christie and Patristic Baptism s^ems to me quite as remarkable for fresh, fair, and exhaustive 
 investigation as the volumes which preceded it. I demur, indeed, at a few of your exegetical details. 
 With reference, however, to your main positions on the suljject, they are incontrovertibly established. 
 Such a variety of evidence; and so clear, conclusive, overwhelming, must command assent. And while I 
 do not look for any widespread and confessed change among the friends of ' the theory ' for the present, 
 I am yet persuaded that your essential views and conclusions in this matter, will, sooner or later, become 
 ecumenical. Certainly this must be so, if truth can prevail in the Church. Personally I have enjoyed 
 and been benefited by your labors, beyond what I can tell you." 
 
 * That a ritual baptism belongs to Christianity is a concluded point. Whether Matt. 28: 19 was designed to give 
 the formula tor such service is au open question. The N. T. gives no example of sucli use by the Apostles. Its 
 vei'y early use was accompanied with the acknowledgment that the Apostles did not u.se this formula, but did u.se 
 another. The solution of this question does not rest on this Inquiry. Its determination, one way or the other, in 
 no wise affects its pi-inciples or its results. Its determination at all is not vital, yet rich in the profoundest instruc- 
 tion. Therefore, while only adjacent to this Inquiry, it has received the fullest consideration.— D. 
 
Judgment of Periodicals. 
 
 Presbyterian Quarterly and Princeton Review. 
 
 "With Christie and Patristic Baptism Dr. Dale concludes his indefatigable and learned investigations 
 into the usage of a single word during a period of a thousand years. Whatever judgment may be 
 formed as to some of his positions, all will agree in admiring his scholarly enthusiasm, his immense 
 research, his skill and ingenuity, as well as his candor in the manaiiement of a very diiiicult subject. 
 He has >indoubtedly shed light on many important points, and given new and valuable interpretations 
 to passages of Scripture, and to the patristic usage. Even where he may have spiritualized the sense 
 of the word to a greater degree than we have been wont to do, he has still opened the way to needful 
 investigations. It is an indispensable work to all who engage in this controversy ; and we bespeak for 
 it a cordial reception. -We propose to have it noticed in our Preview at some future time, more fully, 
 hy a competent critic." 
 
 Church and State (Episcopal), New Yorh. 
 
 "Christie and Patristic Baptism is the fourth of a remarkable series of books In discussing a 
 
 subject rather dry and dreary to most readers, he gives a life and pleasantness to the discussion bj^ un- 
 swerving good humor and suavity of manner. He is always gentlemanly ; he indulges in no bitterness 
 of tone or language ; and though he does keenly expose contradictions, illogical absurdities and strange 
 confusion of words and ideas in the Baptist Confessions and standard defences, yet he does not perform 
 his work in a boastful or unkind spirit. If one must be confuted in an important controversy, he might 
 well wish to be handled by such an antagonist as Dr. Dale. Considered as a propugnaculuni contra Bap- 
 tlstas these volumes are invaluable. The author has received from every quarter the most gratifying 
 assurances of complete success His interpretations of various passages of Scripture are fre- 
 quently adverse to the views adopted by our church in her services and standards, especially the bap- 
 
 tisimal service and the catechism The Fathers were, of course, wrong according to Dr. Dale; but 
 
 he does not, on this account, think it necessary to use harsh or improper language in regard to them." 
 
 The Advance (Congregational), Illinois. 
 
 "Dr. Dale has gained a well-earned repute as the most thorough investigator of the meaning 
 and implications of the Greek word pairTilw, that has yet appeared in the ranks of biblical scholars. 
 .... Christie and Patristic Baptism concludes his scholarly inquiries. The discussion is conducted 
 with exceeding care and thoroughness, and with a rigorous adherence to Greek usage. He riddles ' the 
 
 theory' of our Baptist brethren through and through While his general exposition will meet 
 
 with acceptance and must eventually make a deep impression on scholarly Baptists, his explanations 
 
 of specific passages will occasion more doubt. We are not yet convinced that he is correct But 
 
 while on such points he makes a more difficult argument to answer than many would anticipate, and 
 possibly may yet revolutionize current ideas, his main positions are in no wise dependent upon his 
 success in these cases. They only show his independence of mind and his anxiety to gain the Scriptu- 
 ral conception and to maintain Greek usage Patristic Baptism Dr. Dale finds to involve curious 
 
 additional points. He sheds much light on this matter. . . . Dr. Dale has virtually finished the contro- 
 versy on this subject, and in time ' the theory ' for wliich Baptists have unhappily contended with such 
 misguided consciences, will die out of intelligent minds." 
 
 The Christian Intelligencer (Pweformed [Dutch]), Neiu York. 
 
 "This massive volume completes Dr. Dale's series of learned volumes on baptism The most 
 
 cursory glance at these two works (Chrislic and Patristic Baptism), in one volume, suffices to show the 
 writer's laborious and extended learning, his logical power, and his critical skill. We do not wonder 
 that our Baptist friends find it difficult to answer his powerful arguments. The 'Country Pastor' of 
 Pennsylvania, has garnered full sheaves from the literature of more than a thousand years. These 
 volumes constitute the most complete thesaurus of this controversy accessible to English readers." 
 
 The Congregationalist, Massachusetts. 
 
 "A divine, in the middle of the phlegmatic state of Pennsylvania has been, by Classic, Judaic, 
 
 •Tohannic, Christie and Patristic Baptism, troubling the Baptist Israel It is our impression that 
 
 the policy of ignoring these repeated onslaughts of this 'country pastor' has been found to be, on the 
 whole, easier than to try to answer them — they certainly have not been answered. The time ha« now 
 come, however, when something will have to be done about it, or confession made that 'the theory ' has 
 no logical ground to rest upon. Dr. Dale shows that the notion 'that Christian baptism consisted in a 
 water dipping,' was a novelty unheard of in the history of the Church for more than fifteen hundred 
 years, and is an absolute abandonment of the baptism of inspiration. This result must be rather stun- 
 ning to those who have nursed the idea that they were the only really baptized persons in the Christian 
 
 world It remains for our Baptist brethren to overturn the patient and solid reasoning of these 
 
 tremendous volumes — if they can. Not to undertake it will be to confess judgment; and to succeed 
 they have to do their work so that it will stand the judgment of impartial philology." 
 
 Central Christian Advocate (Methodist), 3Iissouri. 
 
 " ' The Cup and the Cross,' an exposition of the Baptism of Calvary, was presented by Dr. Dale, before 
 the Synod of Philadelphia, and published at their request. The author has already won a deservedly 
 great reputation by his treatises on Baptism. We advise the purchase of these books." 
 
 Pacific Christian Advocate (Methodist), Oregon. 
 
 " Let none suppose these volumes a mere compilation. Some years ago we had occasion to ' read up' 
 on this subject, and not only do we consider Dr. Dale's works the most learned and exhaustive, but the 
 most original and readable of the scores of works we have met with. They will do more to settle the 
 question of mode, than any other uninspired works ever published." 
 
 Richmond Christian Advocate (Methodist), Virginia. 
 
 "We should like to copy 'The Cup and the Cross; or, the Baptism of Calvary,' bodily into our columns, 
 to enlarge its influence, and to give to thousands of our readers some of the pleasure its perusal has 
 given to us. The author's thorough study of the subject is already given in four learned volumes. 
 These works push immersionists and their doctrines to the extreme of unclassical, unscriptural and 
 illogical pretension The conclusions of the author are elaborately argued and well sustained." 
 
Inquiry Completed. Judgment of Scholars. 
 'Thesaurus." "Masterly." "Standard." "Final" 
 
 Professor "Willis J. Beecher, D.D., Auburn Theol. Sem., New York. 
 
 " I have just finished reading your book. Thanks for the pleasure and the profit of it. I am inter- 
 ested in tracing througli the discussion a certain generic difference of view between us, combined with 
 what seems to me an absolute identity of view in regard to the main question. . . . You have certainly 
 demonstrated, that the intusposition demanded by Pa-n-ri^o} is without self-limitation as to time and 
 without limitation as to the form of the act; that PaTrriZco st~ brings into a new condition, which in 
 the New Testament is never water, or any other purely physical element or condition ; that the dative, 
 with or without £u, as an adjunct of PanrKw in the active voice, expresses agency and not receptive 
 element. . . . The Fathers certainly use /Jairn'so) characteristically to express a thorough change in 
 the condition of the baptized person, and not a mere covering in the water. I regard the evidence 
 adduced by you as substantiating the following 
 
 Summary Results: 
 
 "1. BAITTIZiZ belongs to that class of verbs {to cover, to hury; to dye, to imbue) which expresses con- 
 dition to be effected by some act, the form of the act being left at will. This word demanding, in 
 general, a thorough change of condition, and, in particular, (1.) A thorough change of condition by 
 intusposition ; (a.) within a permeable element, (6.) without limitation of time, (c.) by any competent 
 act ; thus bringing the baptized object, in the fullest degree, under the characteristic quality or power 
 of the investing element. (2.) A thorough change of condition without intusposition; (a,) by any act 
 (pouring water on hot iron) or influence (wine drunk) which exerts a penetrating, pervading, and assim- 
 ilating power over its object conforming it to the characteristic quality of the baptizing agency ; (&.) by 
 any agency which has a legal power {sprinkled blood, heifer ashes), or putative power (Patristic water) 
 thoroughly to change the condition ; (c.) by a divinely appointed symbol {pure water) without legal or 
 putative power to change the condition in fact, but whose characteristic (physically purifying) fitly 
 symbolizes a spiritually purifying agency, and therefore, in a rite, symbolly changes the condition in 
 conformity with the characteristic of the symbolized agency. 
 
 " 2. BAHTIZil BIS, in organic relation, expresses the passing of the baptized object into a new ele- 
 ment (real or ideal) without withdrawal, and therefore expresses the subjection of the baptized object, 
 in the fullest degree, to the characteristic influence of such element. 
 
 " 3. BA IITIZii EN in combination does not exhibit the verb in the active voice with the preposition 
 indicating the receiving element, in ordinary and characteristic use. This preposition with the verb 
 in the passive voice indicates the baptized object as already within and abiding within the receiving 
 element. In the New Testament this preposition never indicates the complementary idea of the verb, 
 but points out the agency (real or symbol) by which the baptism is effected. 
 
 " 4. BAHTISM A originates in the New Testament and never expresses physical covering, but always 
 (directly or by association) thoroughly changed spiritual condition. 
 
 " 5. Christian Baptism is a thoroughly changed condition of the soul effected by the Holy Ghost 
 through the efiicacy of the atoning blood of Jesus Christ. 
 
 " 6. EiTUAL Christian Baptism is real Christian Baptism symbolized (as purifying the soul) by pure 
 ■water applied to the body (by pouring or sprinkling or other equivalent modes; and presenting a visible 
 seal of the promises of God under the conditions of the covenant. It is in itself the technical passing 
 into a thoroughly changed condition of outward personal relation to the visible kingdom of God. 
 
 "7. A DIPPING INTO WATER is not Christian Baptism noT, as such, any 'Ba.Tptisva. Such use of the ritual 
 water can only be recognized, in Christian charity, by rejecting the dipping as no element in the Christian 
 rite and basing the validity solely on the presence and use of pure water. 
 
 In fine, 
 your investigation seems to me to be a complete scientific study of the subject and, in its main results, 
 final. I am confident that your work, now completed, is standard, and will circulate more widelj^ as it 
 becomes better known." 
 
 Professor Leonard Bacon, D.D., New Haven Theol. Sem., Connecticut. 
 "If any man would study the subject of Baptism thoroughly, minutely, and exhaustively, he can find 
 no h&tteT thesaurus of learning and of suggestive thought than you have provided for him in these 
 volumes. I admire your industry, the force of your argumentation, the freshness, and oftentimes the 
 originality of your views. ... I thank you heartily for your great contribution to the literature of a 
 subject on which good men have differed so long." 
 
 President J. F. Hurst, D.D., Drew Theol. Sem., New Jersey. 
 " Your masterly work on Christie Baptism covers the entire subject. Your extensive researches, your 
 profound sympathy with the theme, and your method of treatment, have enabled you to produce a 
 work which not only meets a great want, but will, I trust, occupy a permanent place in American 
 theology. I congratulate you on your success." 
 
" Monumentum cere per ennius.'' 
 
 PROFESSOR LYMAN COLEMAN, D.D., Lafayette College. 
 
 " I have read with some care and with great interest your elaborate and 
 exhaustive treatise on Patristic Baptism. Your main position, that PaTrrtW 
 does not express or imply ' water covering^^ iTnmersion, is undeniably established 
 by your induction of patristic authorities. 
 
 " Your views respecting ' simple water' and ' impregnated water ' are some- 
 what novel to me. Whether this term impregnated'^ is the best expression of 
 the patristic meaning may be an open question ; but you have certainly shown 
 that it implied a change of state, condition, or character, wrought either by the 
 water or symbolized by it. . . . Grant, for the sake of argument, all that the 
 friends of the theory claim for the meaning of /?a7rri?&), and yet it can be shown, 
 by your induction of authorities, that \n patristic usage it is impossible to give 
 it this meaning in baptisms of tears, blood, etc. You have virtually said all 
 this, but it might be brought out still more fully. 
 
 " I am not quite clear that burial in baptism has its parallelism in Christ's 
 burial in the tomb. I rather take to the metaphorical parallelism of commen- 
 tators without being very positive on that point. [Patristic writers interpreted 
 separately might favor the one view or the other. — D.] 
 
 " Your books are to be standard references for all time — ^monumentum cere 
 perennius ' — thorfore make a full index, so that each volume can be consulted 
 for every particular author, passage, and word." 
 
 * " Impregnated water" expresses a divine influence communicated to "simple water" (co- 
 action of water and the Holy Spirit), an idea abounding (most mistakenly) among patristic 
 writers. — D. 
 
 Patristic Baptism was intended for a separate volume. But 
 its important relation to Christig Baptism, both in likeness and 
 unlikeness, together with the desirableness of a ready comparison of 
 the one with the other, has induced their incorporation in one volume. 
 This volume, therefore, has [by smaller type and increased pages) 
 double the amount of matter in either of the preceding volumes. The 
 price while increased is relatively less. To those inexperienced in 
 publication I may say : It is a cause of sincerest regret that all these 
 books could not be furnished at a much less price. The cost has not 
 been fixed for pecuniary gain, but by inexorable necessity. Neither 
 for labor expended nor for money invested has the Author received 
 one dollar. "Buy the truth and sell it not." 
 
 D. 
 
 Octavo, pp. 680, price $-5.00 ; to clergymen, $Jf,.00. 
 
 WM. BUTTER ^ CO., Publishers, 
 
 SEVENTH AND CHEBBY STS., PHILA-DELPHIA. 
 

 ;^^ 
 
 
 A^^ 
 
youm 
 
 ^n 
 
 Vm.f^