^ PRINCETON, N. J. '*^' Presented by Mr. Samuel Agnew of Philadelphia, Pa. AgJietv Coll. on Baptism, No. ,Sjl!^Cr,) (..;[,... Digitized by the Internet Archive in 2011 with funding from Princeton Theological Seminary Library http://www.archive.org/details/inqurryintousageOO AN INQUIRY THE USAGE OF BAIlTIZa, AND THE NATURE OF JUDAIC BAPTISM, AS SHOWN BT JEWISH AND PATKISTIC WEITINGS. JAMES W.^DALE, D.D., PASTOB OF THE MKDIA PREgBYTEBIAK CEVRCH. DELAWARE COUNTY, P4. Second ^bition. xara to auveidu^ dfj.apT7jfxdTwv. Chrtsostoh. PHILADELPHIA: PRESBYTERIAN BOARD OF PUBLICATION. 1334 Chestnut Street. " The r3al difficulty has been, not that the subject has been discussed too much, but that the discussion /las not been sufficiently radical and exten- sive ; that much very important evidence has been sparingly used, if used at all." Beecher. "If I speak with confident boldness from my own conviction, let him contradict still more boldly whom I do not convince." Stieb. Entered according to Act of Congress, in the year 1869, By James W. Dal e. Id the Cle-k'e OfiSce of the District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. CAXTOX PKESS (IF SHERMAN t CO., PHILADU.PHIA. GENERAL VIEW OF CONTENTS. ''*^-^^''^ 1. PAOG Criticisms of Classic Baptism. By The Christian Press, The National Baptist, The ELxaminer and Chronicle, The New Englander, The Eeligious 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 Patriots, 129-342 4. Apocrypha. II Maccabees 1 : 19-36 ; Judith 12 : 7-9, . ... 343-875 5. New Testamekt. Jewish Baptisms, ... 377-388 6. JOSEPHUS. Judaic and Johannic Baptisms, . • . . . , 389-390 7. Kesitlts. I. Material for judgment. 2. Usage of Jew and Greek harmonious. 3. Jewish baptisms not dippings. 4. The theorists made apologists. 5. Classic Baptism confirmed. 6. Appropriation — Ceremonial puri- fication, 391-400 (iii) BAPTISMS EXAMINED. JEWISH WKITEKS. Condition of Inttjsposition and Condition without Inttjsposition. 1. Baptized, sword. Jewish War, ii, 18, . 2. " ship. Life of Josephus, g 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, 9, 17. " stupefied. " iv, 4, 18. " purified ceremonially. Sirach, 34 : 30, 19. " John's and Jewish. Jew. Ant., xviii, 6 PAGE 61 64 64 64 66 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, 21. of a fountain. 22. by deluge. 23. of Naaman, 24. by Bethesda, 25. by washing, 26. It 27. by pouring an Gen. 1:2, . 134 Ex. 15 : 23-25, . 143 Gen. 6 : 13, . . 148 II Kings, 5:14, . 154 John 5:4, . 164 Levit. 15: 5, . . 1G9 Ezek. 16 : 4, 9, . 172 condition, Ezek. 36: 25, 26, . 195 28. " by washing hands and feet, change of condition, Ex. 40 : 30-33, . 175 29. '* by sprinkling, change of condition, Levit. 14:4-7, . 184 30. " by washing and sprinkling, change of condition, Ps. 51 : 2, 7, . . 186 (iv) BAPTISMS EXAMINED. PAQB 81. Baptism by circumcision, change of condition Joshua 5: 3, 9, 206 32. ' « by drops of blood, '* u Exod. 12 : 7, 12, 13 216 33. ' by flaming sword, " 11 Gen. 3 : 24, . 222 34. ' ' by a coal of fire, " (( Isaiah 6 : 5-7, 239 35. ' ' by water, spirit, and fire. change oi condition Isaiah 4:4, 248 36. ' ofiron and by sins, change of condition , II Kings 6 : 6, 6, 251 37. ' by pollution, " (I Job 9: 30, 31, 268 38. ' ' by suflfering, " (( Ps. 69:1,2, . 272 39. ' by sincerity, " (I Cant. 5:12, . 274 40. ' by repentance, " (( Isaiah 1 : 16, 17, 277 41. ' by iniquity, " K Isaiah 21:4, . 284 42. ' ' by sea and cloud, " l< Ex. 14:19,31, 289 43. ' ' into Moses, " U 1 Cor. 10:2, . 305 44. ' ' by the Jordan, " IC II Kings 2: 8, 315 45. ' into Joshua, " It Josh. 3:16, 17, 320 46. ' by pouring, '• (( I Kings 18:32, 328 Apocrypha. 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 EXSTTLTS. BAPTISMS OF JOSEPHUS, PHILO, AND SON OF SIRACH, CLASSIFIED. IntUSPOSITION "WITHOtTT INFLUENCE. " He mersed the entire sword into his throat." PAGE JOSEPHXTS, 61 2. Intusposition with Intltjence. 4 Vessel mersed in the Adriatic Josephtjs, 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 FiauRE Grounded in Destructive Mersion. Swam away from the city as from a mersed ship. As a last storm mersed the young men. Josephus, 71 " 71 SECONDAEY 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. vu 2. Appropriation. Before they become thoroughly drunk (baptized). 3. Verbal Figure. Baptized by drunkenness into insensibility. . PAOB . Philo, 84 JOSEPHUS, 92 Ceremonial Purification. Baptizing by heifer ashes, they sprinkled it. . . Josephus, 100 Baptized from the dead. Son of Sirach, 112 BAPTISMS OF SCRIPTURE ANJ) APOCRYPHA. AGENCIES AND CHANGES OF CONDITION. WATER BAPTISMS. ■WATER ITSELF BAPTIZED. A New Quality Imparted. PAGE The Spirit moved upon the waters, 134 The pool of Myrrha made sweet, 143 Baptism by 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, 176 Pouring and Sprinkling. Leviticus 14 : 4-7, 184 Psalm 51: 2, 7, 186 Ezekiel 36 : 25, 26, . .195 Baptism by Blood. Circumcision, 206 Blood dropping from the cross, 216 Baptism by Fire. Water, Spirit, and Fire, . . ^ 248 Coal of Fire 239 Flaming Sword, 222 ( viii ) BAPTISMS OF SCRIPTURE AND APOCRYPHA. ix Baptisms iNVOLViNa Mental and Moral Influence. PAQK Sins, 262 Corruption, 262 Trouble, 262 Faith, 262 Eepentance, 277 Iniquity, . . 284 Baptism and Miracle. EedSea, 289 Jordan divided, 315 Passage of the Jordan, 320 Altar of Carmel, 328 Temple fire rekindled, 345 Baptisms Ceremonially PxjRiFTiNa. Baptism from heathen camp, 862 Baptism from diverse defilements, 879 Symbol Baptism. Ceremonially Purifying Baptism a Symbol of Spiritual Purification. Judaic and Johannic baptism in contact, 389 PATEISTIC INTERPRETERS. Genesis 1 : 2, PASS Tertullian, Didymus Alexandrinus, Ambrose, Jerome, and Basil Magnus, 134 Exodus 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, 154 John 5 : 4. Ambrose, Didymus Alexandrinus, 164 LEViTictrs 16 : 5. Chrysostom, Clemens Alexandrinus, 169 EzEKiEL 16 : 4, 9. Jerome, 172 EzEKiEL 36 : 25, 26. Jerome, Hilary, Didymus Alexandrinus, Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Cyprian, 196 Exodus 40 : 30-33. Cyril of Jerusalem, Origen, Clemens Alexandrinus, .... 176 Leviticus 14 : 4-7, Ambrose, 186 PATRISTIC INTERPRETERS. XI Psalm 51 : 2, 7. PAQE Ambrose, Cyril, Gregory Nazianzen, 186 Joshua 5:3, 9. Justin Martyr, Gregory Nazianzen, Cyril, Origen, .... 207 ExoDXTS 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 : 5, 6. Justin Martyr, Tertullian, Irenoeus, Chrysostom, Ambrose, . . 251 Job 9: 30, 31. Aquila, 269 Psalm 9 : 15. Jerome, 270 Psalm 69 : 1, 2. Symmachus, Jerome, 27;i 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 COK. 10 : 2. PAOB Paul, 306 II Kings 2 : 8. Origen, Cyril, 315 Joshua 3 : 16, 17. Origen, 821 I Kings 18 : 32-38. Origen, Basil Magnus, Gregory Nazianzen, Ambrose, . . . 328 APOCRYPHA. II Maccabees 1 : 19-36. Ambrose, 345 Judith 12 : 5-9. Septuagint, 352 NEW TESTAMENT. Hebrews 9 : 9, 10. Hilary, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Justin Martyr, Gregory Nazi- anzen, 379 PASSAGES OF SCRIPTURE AND OF THE APOCRYPHA EXAMINED, WITH THE PAGE "WHERE THEY MAY BE FOUND, . PAGE PAGB 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 15:6, . 169 Ezekiel 16 : 4, . 172 Joshua 3 : 16, 321 Ezekiel 36 : 25, . 196 Joshua 5:3, 207 John 6:4,. 164 I Kings 18 : 32, . 328 I Cor. 10 : 2, 305 II Kings 2:8, . 315 Hebrews 9:9, . 379 II Kings 5 : 14, . 164 II Maccabees 1 : 19, 245 II Kings 6:6,. 251 Judith 12:6, 352 Job 9 : 30, . 269 Sirach 34 : 30, . 112 ( «"i ) AUTHORS AND WORKS QUOTED. Ambrose, Anastasius, Aristeas, Aristophanes, Aristotle, Aquila, Baptist Quarterly, Basil Magnus, Beecher, President, Bekkor, 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, Fairbairn, Principal, Franklin, Dr. Benjamin, Fuller, Dr., ( ^^y ) 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 E., London, Irenseus, Jerome, John of Damascus, Josephus, Justin Martyr, Kames, Lord, Kendrick, A. C, D.D., Kiihner, Lowenthal, Eev., 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, Kipley, Prof., Kosenmuller, Scott, Sir Walter, Septuagint, Shakspeare, Son of Sirach, Smith, Dr. W., Stewart, Kev. Charles, Stourdza, Alex, de, Struzius, Stuart, Professor, Symmachus, Tertullian, Theophylact, Tholuck, Professor, Yalesius, 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 ''^^^W.Wvv^^ CONSIDERED IN ITS NATURE 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 Greeks 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 pttssess 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 /^aTr-j^w 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 CEITICISMS 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 me 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 i^ld-ccs 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 iSdnru) and ^oKriZu) have, in the Greek classical writers, the sense of dip, plunge, immerge, sink, &c. Bid 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 /Sa-rco, the last two to ^anri'^m. 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 ivashing 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 authority 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, saying, I was preaching from the text, 'they 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 ixwy 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 CKITICISMS 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 onhj 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 f-rpressed, 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 painful. 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 Couant says, {in this definition by 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 ^ar.riZo) 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 ^d—w and l^a-zi'^to. 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 ^aitriZu) 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 respegt 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 or 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 OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 27 on the subject of baptism. But there is a special reason for this. It is found, mainlj', in the original confounding to- gether of fidr.Toj and i3a-ri'^u} as absolute equivalents. Thus dipping, and dyeing, 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 ^dr.-uj. When this deniand is met, the partnership be- tween these words will be thoroughly dissolved, and iSaTrri^uj 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 hy such change of character, state, or condition, does in fact baptize it.' "A definition is usually made more clear and forcible by examples. Tlie 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. Our 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 ! AVhat 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 Avould not have put it into type. Classic Baptism must be prepared to stand fire, even though it be " Avild 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 spoken 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. 31artyr fire effects not merely a destructive baptism, but also, a purifying baptism. A lighted match efleets 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 !" 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 througli 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 bcxly 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, ^a-TzziXio is used to express the relation 30 JUDAIC BAPTISM. between such agencies and their objects, it gives develop- ment in the compleiest 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 tire 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 by 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. "Fire 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, st(;ve, 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? (CB.yidem.) "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 '' Tcne manum," do you say? Well, be it so, we will leave the catalogue incomplete; only adding, when the theory of water dippiug shall have brought itself into harmony with these classic baptisteries, "the con- clusion " will take care of those of the " tire-place, the stove, and the furnace." 7. " Our great factories — Lowell, Lawrence, and Manches- ter — what baptizers!" These great establishments use alto- gether too " much water" for Classic Baptism to run them. If the Examiner will put on sufficiently 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 injluence. 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 rigurativc 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 npo!] it, or who will read those who have done so. But,'a3 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 w^ill answer very well the purpose for which it was written. The principles which have governed ray 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 manj^ 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 CKITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 33 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 Bhei., 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. Kor 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 loater to the lips; which being done, lie found no ground for the figure. And no wonder, for the figure is designed to develop the influence of iioverty 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 bewildered, sleepy, or possessed ivith the devil, and a man under ivater, 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 NewEnglander 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 agenc}', and in which there is no direct or incidental evi- dence of a physical scene being 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 ofiending, 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 BAPTISiVI. 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, "«???/ thorough change of condition," and the thorough change of condition of ^^ any 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 jSTew Englander, now to be noticed. " He does not say, that a surgeon, wdio 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." 86 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 bottle of the stuffdown 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 iu ' the conclusion.' " ISTo 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 fifty-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 ^aTtri'Cuj, and it ex- presses, as Mr. Dale says, 'thorough influence of any kind.'" Let the reader observe the words, " of any kiml^^ 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 oi immersing \\\2X 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 i7nmersing, 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 jwwcr-loom is influenced into broad- cloth !" Whetstones, scalpels, &c., &c., are "funny" adjuncts of ^aTzriZo). 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 i^anri^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 differ. In secondary use, immerse in is the almost invariable form ; while in secondary use, baptize 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 difterence of conception is ingrained in the terms. The difference of meaning is, sometimes, most obvious. ^'■Im- mersed 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 " baptized 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 fiic 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. 39 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 ^aizTi^w 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 distinguished lexicographers and critics, that ^anTi^w signifies dip, jdunge, 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 ^dzru), except thatof f/^/e 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, metaphorically 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 argwnenlum ad homiiiem ? 40 JUDAIC BAPTISM. The Herald says, through Donnegan, that fianrii^a) meangi "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 t^ays, through Donnegan, fianriZm 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, ^anri^u} 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 lexicography? Besides, Donnegan says, ^aTtrilu) means, literally^ " 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 foll3\ 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. How 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 Donnegan. 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 infiuence." This is done by the naked submerge. ■ (2.) " Intusposition with infiuence." This is expressed by to saturate. (3.) " Intusposition for influence." This is evidently in to soak thoroughly. (4.) "Influence with- BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 41 out iiitusposition," This is, as clearly, in to drench (make drunk) loith wine. And (5.) " Influence without intusposition, in the ease 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. S34), who was baptized, bewildered, " totally confounded" hy 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 (idnru), 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 U7ider 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 uuphysi- 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 eveiy 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)? "IlTot the slightest," The pointblauk 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 " in these pas- sages immerse does not change its meaning," i. e., it retains its literal meaning to put in or under, ^ext 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, &c. 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. Now, 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- plo}' says he has been putting a homiet 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 icooden 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 philosoph}^, " 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 put in, under, and nothing else; for I read it in the Herald, and ' no sophistry can blind my under- standino;.' " So much for " child" knowledo;e. 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 in =put 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 CRITICISP.IS 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; (3-1-3) = 1 — 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 iimey in another re- lation express emit, and in another item, and in another mite, and in another / 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 ? No. 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 ma}^ 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 — by a destructive tem'pest, then we will have a fearful life imparted to the words. If it should be — by ex- cessive wine-drinking, then we should have a very shameful life communicated to them. But whether fearful or shame- ful, "baptized" cannot be interpreted disjunctlj^, 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 hoyninem, 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 argumentum 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 pinch of snuff, nor stumping 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, and 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 em- BAPTIST CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 47 braces both the acts of literal baptism and the influenees 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 efi*ected 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, "/;! 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 efifect of sprinkling and not the sprinkling itself." All of which is most orthodox and quite to the purpose. 2. "/i! is conceded that, figurativelj^, 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. "//I 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 eiFort to trick ^anri^u) 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. — Phaatasma- 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 CRITICISMS OF CLASSIC BAPTISM. 49 Spare bis 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. "Nobody doubts that iSdTtrw may mean to dip, BanriZco be- came naturally applied ordinarily to immersions of a more formal and longer character, while [idr.Tta 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 [no matter hoio, 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 uyider 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 50 JUDAIC BAPTISM. frightened candidate of a safe exit from the water. — Grant- ing that ^dnrut always engages to take its subject out of the water (which we do not believe) and that /Sarrt'Cw never does engage to take its subject out of the water, (which we readily admit.) — We let (^anri'^io 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 j^ou, once and again, that you must get rid of dip. Dip puts into the water and takes out; baptize never takes out of the water what it once 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, N"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, JSTew 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 Avill 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 difl'erent 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. ISTor will I sa}^ that the miscon- ception is due wholly to others, and in no wise to myself; but to whomsoever 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 ^ar.TiZui 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 ^a-KriZm 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 the 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 protection remains, and assim- ilates with flowing water. And the meaning of the phrase is, and is nothing else, than that Great Britain has 2^, 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 Loudon 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 : " Cneraon, 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 imrties under water in fact or in figure. It does not denj', that the true meaning of the passage may be reached by tracing a resemblance in some respect, between the conclitioa 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- 54 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. Now, 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. Neither 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 eft'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 " casualt}'." And baptize is not only not used to express a covered condition, real or imaginary, on the part of these suflerers, but it is not used to expi'css 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. 5J) 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 were 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." ("VYhately, 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 eficct 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 Rhetoric, pp. 344, 848.) 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." TiTow, both the verbal form and thought of the metaphor under consideration differs in the Greek and English languages. "Immersed in calamity" makes calamity the element and inn ess the basis of the thought; but "baptized 6j/ 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 during 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 calamitj', but overwhelmed by. Nor does it say ^'■immersed f/^/o calamity; " m-mersed expresses position, into expresses movement. Their conjunction would be incon- gruous. The English use of immerse and the Greek usage of ySar-t^w 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 fiofurative lans^uao-e 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 sharpening a knife by a whetstone changes the condition of the knife by putting it under the loater; 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 steely 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 intusposition, is capable of baptizing that object; and whatever influence is capable of thoroughly changing the character, state, or condition, of any object, by yerrading 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 Migu^. The quotations are limited, with rare exceptions, to writers of the first four centuries. JEWISH WRITERS. (69) 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. BARTIZQ. INTUSPOSITION WITHOUT INFLUENCE. PRIMARY USE. Tijv re 8e^tAv dvarscvaq, u)q fiTjdiva kaOeiv^ vXov ej'c rijv iauTOu j7npos., Mercurialis iv 6 Var. Lect., and Clem. Alex, i, 416, in support of the meaning. And there Uiay 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 ^ar.ziXu), 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 merely 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. !Now, as l^dr.TU) gave origin to dye, through the coloring-vat, so l^aTtTL^u) 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 wiue-casks, with bursting heads, pouring forth a vinous flood, by which the drunkard is overwhelmed and swept away ? Does he 05 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 such figuring as this, (in which the luxuriant imaginations of other Baptist writers find delight,) I am qaite 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. Conaut 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 m" 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 'n 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. No 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 exj^ress the highest degree of influence "wiihoMi 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 m- mersed in wine," (p. 79.) Two such combatants as Couant and Carson, the champions of contradictory meanings of /SoTTTt'Cw, 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-influenco resem- bled to the influence exerted by immersion over any partic- ular object, — a stone, a ship, a bag of salt, a liuman being? As the influence in each of these cases diflers, 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 (Sanui^m in which resemblance rejects mode of action, rejects immer- TO BAPTIZE — TO MAKE DKUNK. 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 au 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. Kow, this "controlling influence," in its abstract conception, elim- inated from the primary use, we say, becomes concrete in a secondary use of ^air-i^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 specific influence, all of which have been sloughed ofi", 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 aflbrds a more favorable opportunity for the discussion of principles, than in a case where prejudice might be supposed to dis- qualify for au impartial examination. Novelties adduced to meet exigencies are suspicious. 92 JUDAIC BAPTISM. BAPTISM BY DRUNKENNESS. VERBAL FIGURE. KdX ^e^aTTTtfffJiivov ei'c dvatffSrjffiav xal uttvov unb t^<; fxiSi^e;. 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, Ishraael 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 suifering 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 ^ar^ri^u)^ 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 5w6-merge, to meet the idea of going under ; while some other baptism is translated orer-whelm, to meet a supposed idea of a flood going over the object; and yet another is translated ^:>Zi/??^6', to meet the supposed de- mand of the preposition dq^ which is found in the passage; and so on. Now these translations, evidently, neither are nor can be in response to the demand of /Ja-rt'Cw, but are modelled after some accidental features of tlie 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 ^ar.Ti^m. 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. Not content with such use of the term as would enable them to say, that in such and such cases, the word was trojyed, turned from its primary sense to meet a special application, they convert " figure " into a limner with brush and pallet and ivater colors, ever ready to sketch some marine view, 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 onrolling 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, Avine baptism, famine baptism, woe of spirit, unnerved intellect, bewildered faculties, profound repose, utter destruction, and so on, even ad iujimtum! 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. turiiig ? 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 pdTzruj 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 ^dnTm 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 ^auri^u)^ 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 ^a-Kri'^u). 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 indifierence 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 ^EIS — Us translation. — Let us first determine what should be the translation of the preposition ei'c, which mast 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 /Sa-rt'Cw makes demand for intusposition, in primar}" 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 merelj- telic character being attributed to it, and positively requires intusposition. 2. Because the association of kindred verbs with this preposition does, admittedly, produce this result. Take, for example, the following: El^ unvov xaraneaovTiuv — " Having fallen into sleep " ( Ckm. Rom.) — not unto, wov for, sleep. Uapaneaouaa elq fxiSrjv — " The fcast passing into, not unto, nor for, drunk- enness." (Clem. Alex.) Ek avaaSriaiav uKofspo/iii'Tj — "Carrying down into, not unto, nor for, insensibility." (Clem. Alex.) " In novam legem inducti sunt. In Evangeliuin inducti sunt. Inducted into, not unto, nor for, the new law," &c. (Ay^ibrose.) Because another translation than into may make good sense, or declare a true sentiment, gives no sufiicient proof that it is accordant with the form of the phraseolog}', or is reached by the route which the phraseology suggests. These figurative phrases are founded in literal use. KazanovnaOr^vat. eig SaXdffffav — " To be swallowcd down into the sea, not unto, noY for, the sea." [Clem. Alex.) "Emergere in lucem — to emerge into, not u7ito, nor for, the light." {Tertull.) In every case of baptism, the baptized object passes out of one position or condition, and passes i7ito another. Some- times both of these (always implied) are expresslj stated — 96 JUDAIC BAPTISM. h aoxppoauvrjq ei'; r.opveiav [ia-nriZouai — " They baptize Old of tem- perance into fornication." {Clem. Alex.) So, literally, ixerd^stq ix Tonou d<; 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 usas^e 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 i(;i7/( horror ; troubles rolling oyer 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 philosophy, for this would not modify the statement^ but convert it into some- thing wholl}' 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? Not 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 uo 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 easily 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 faculties." 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 T 98 JUDAIC BAPTISM. as unknown quantities needing to be resolved at.d reduced to an intelligible proposition every time tbey 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 intusposition, (1), be- cause it is impossible to apply 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 ajlint 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 like "the ship mid crew," destroyed; but it is penetrated and pervaded and brouglit 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. Baizri'^u) dq, when used in relations not admitting of intusposition, but of influence, drops the former idea and expresses directly the idea o^ controlling ijifluence. 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 fluids 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 /Sarrttw e^V, 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. Banziito ex- presses, definitely, the condition of intusposition ; but the efl'ects of intusposition are various, and it cannot express these influences distinctively; it takes, therefore, secondarily, that which is common to all these influences, namelj-, con- 100 JUDAIC BAPTISM. irolUvg power. "When the word is used in this sense, it takea its coloring from its adjunct. Sometimes, as ah-eady 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 only be done by express statement, which w^ill take the form in the passage under consideration — verbal figure — sk being employed, with the proper word, to denote the source and specific character of the influence desired. Thus, while the influence of wine 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 Br SPRINKLING HEIFER ASHES. Tobq oZv d-Tzb vsxpou /lep-iafffiivovt:, r^? Tifpa^ dXiyov ei'c r^rffr^v ivtivreq xa\ offffionov, ^anriffavTSC re xai r^c rifpaq raurrjq elq ^fJY^i'^i ^'^pacvov Tpirrj xai i^doprj rinv rjpepCiv. 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 ISTumbers, chap. xix. " He that toucheth a dead body shall be unclean 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 influeuce, and so bring tbem 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 efi'ected, 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," (Avhen 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 through all Greek litera- ture," then our task is ended before commenced; for no one, not moonstruck, would attempt to perform the act of dipping 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 slate, 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 thoroughbj 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 (ianriZu) 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 ^ar.ziXo}, 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 lioKzi'^u). 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 efl'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 theeffecisf" 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 ac/5. 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.) " Nothing 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 (Jilemma. 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 ^dTCTto^ which expressing originally dipping, (with coloring as a result,) subsequently expresses coloring without the dipping. So, ^aTtzi^w^ 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 tlie 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, ba23tizes 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 peltings 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 changing 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 drinJdng wine is capable of baptizing into drunkenness, or eating opium into sleep, or the falls of Niagara into their seething depths. The right arm of Bap- tist argumentation against "sprinkling," is, here, broken. We know nothing of " one definite ad^' or " many definite acts," or " some general act;'' we make demand for condiiioriy and, by that badge, as the servitors of /5a7rrc'Cw, every act, mo- BAPTISM BY HEIFER ASHES. 107 dal or immodal, few or many, as well as sweeping torrents, falling billows, rising floods, sprinkling drops, in short, what- ever is capable of ihorougldtj 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 effecting 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 jpurification is the changed condition, state, baptism, accomplished. I only add here another remark. The use of /JarrrjCw 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, ftaTtril^oj is employed to express the changed condition effected 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 efi'ected 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 xal t^.ooT-i^p to Aouw, and laver to lave [lavo) ; and that loia, XouTTjp, 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 kour-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 Xouryjp 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" — Kat vi^'ezat 'Aapcjv xat ol uloi auTou i^ adzou tol^ ^elpa<;, xal rou^ Ttodaq udari. (Exod. 80 : 19.) I add but one more fact on this subject of Indian bath- ing. The Rev. Charles Stewart, chaplain U. S. IST., (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 hwu)^ hwrpuv^ washing, bathing, re- quire the " immersion or the complete covering " of the object. Cleansing. — But we may go farther and sa}^, ^oou) 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 and New Testament. When Isaiah says, " Wash (Aouto) 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 prolit was your cleansing or ' washing?' " In the l^ew Testament, the redeemed are said to be "washed" (Xouw) 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 sprinJcling, the same as that in which the typical ashes were applied. Now, 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- mgs=iJiorough cleansings. And if the sprinkling of the blood of Christ is spoken of as a "washing," why not the typical sprinkling of the ashes, also, be spoken of as a washing {XouTpu)^ ? Is it not entirely gratuitous to disconnect this term from the purifying efi:ect of the ashes, in order to bring in a sequent washing, having nothing to do with the distinctive purification of the rite? If ?MUTpuj may be applied to the ashes purification, we say it must 7iot be applied to anything else. It is in proof that ^aTcriZu) refers to the state of purification induced not by water, but by ashes; and this being so, there is a logical necessity that ^^ouTpoJ 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 FKOM 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 sjprinkle 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 ^oorpu) 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 — iourpw — of regeneration." [Basil, iv, 1001.) This death-bed sprinkling,, Basil being witness, effiscted a " washing." The sprinkling of the blood of Christ eflects a washing. The sprinkling of heifer ashes ejffected 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 water has disappeared, not onl}' 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 6t -rr^v i:op(pupav ^dnrovreq — " those d^-eing the purple" — as conclusive evidence of a change of meaning in ^dnru). " 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, d.nd T7t£i 6 Upsbq rbv ddxTuXov d-d tuu aiimroq — "And the pricst 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 — ^anTt'^oiisvoq and vsxpoo^ " 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 body." 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 ^a-Kri%u) in religious rites. Thus the result of language-development is sustained by 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 ^dr.zu} to denote a dipping, and also the far-ofl' idea of « 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 (^aTzri'^u) 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 [ianriZut^ 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 meaning 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 Nelson's jlag-ship, by the same designation — «>/;/> TzoXetuffrr^q. 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 ^aizriZia by the one word merse, (indicating, in otlier ways than by the translation, the differences of meaning, and pointing out their legitimate outgrowth from the radi- cal idea,) I Avill 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 lyurifi- cation 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 ^-obo) in the Septuagint and New Testament; with the classical development of ^aTzri^u); and when the absolute use of l3a7:ri^6/j.evo<;, 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 effected, 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 } PATRISTIC INTEEPRETATION OF PASSAGES IN THE OLD TESTAMENT, EXPOUNDED AS JUDAIC BAPTISMS AND FIGURES OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM, SHOWINa THEIR CONCEPTIOK OF 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 ^ami'^io 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 — e^c "^ov Mwarjv il^aTzziaavzo ; 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, pronounce 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 OF CHRISTIAN BAPTISM. 133 tact, effects a baptism, they are beyond impeacTiment 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 fiict 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 Greek literature ?" If there were no other ruinous evidence against the dip- ping -^-heory 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 WATERS BY QUALITY IMPARTED. Genesis 1 : 2. " And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters." Baptism of the Waters by the Spirit of God. " Sed ea satis praecerpsisse, in quibus et ratio Baptismi recog- noscitur prima ilia, qua jam tunc etiam \^%o habitu praenotabatur ad Baptismi figuram, Dei Spiritum, qui ab initio supervectabatur super aquas, intinctos reformaturum. Sanctum autem utique super sanctum ferebatur; aut ab eo quod superferebatur, id quod ferebat, sancitatem mutuabatur. Quoniam subjecta quteque ma- teria, ejus quae desuper imminet, qualitatem rapiat necesse est, maxime cor2:)oralis spiritalem, et pcnetrare et insidere facilem per substantise suae subtilitatem. Ita de saneto sanctificatOB na- tura aquarum, et ipsse sanctificare concepit." "But it is sufficient to have premised these things, "thereby 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 water's, 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 by a spiritual, through the subtlety of its natui-e. So the nature of the waters was sanctified by the Holy, and itself received the power to sanctify."— TertwZZwn, 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 aSiaiperoq xal apprjzo^ Tpcd^, npoopuxja l^ aliovix; rod d-^Opwntvoo [iioo ra dhffOrjpd, uparu) Ttapayayziv ix pij ovrwv Tr^v uypdv oufftav, TjurpiTztaev BAPTISM or THE WATERS BY THE SPIRIT OF GOD. 135 dvGpwTTotg TTjv Iv Tolq vdaffiv taffcv. Tocydprot ttj kauToo intfopa to ayiov Ilv£up.a ix t6t£ aytdaav abrdi, xd\ Zwoyovuv dnoreXiaav (paivtrai. Uavxi yap npddrjXov VTzdp'^ei^ a»c xai rb UTZzpxtijxtMov rui UTrspxecp.ivu} r^? olxsiaq peradtdwffiv, W oorux; ecTTU), TzoiOTrjTO!;^ xal ndffa 6i:oxetp.ivTq ukrj, rr^q rod inixscpivou ytket irwq dpndZetv idtorr^Toq. "Odsv ddtaxpirux; Tzavri udari, . . • ^dnufffxa yive-cat. (" 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 tliis 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, Avhether 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 ofPar,TiZidy. 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." Xow, 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 ditierence, however, in the two cases; the astronomer hung appendages to his theory, to meet the facts, while the Baj)tist hangs append- ages to the facts, to meet his theory. This flood of waters, covering its object for a large portion of a 3'ear, 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 Noah in the flood. This is his language: "What! Noah 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 AND 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. 413.) " 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 hmaiico inquirendo. "Mueli 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. "Noah 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) without 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 unrepenting 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 1^ 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 bv being " washed " by the deluge waters. This, then, was con- ceived of, not as a physical mersiou, 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 (/3a-rw) may be dyed by dipping (/3a:rrw) : yet " dip- ping" is not an essential to "dyeing," but an accident which may or maj' not be present. In a baptism for ■purification, 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 tlie dyeing. Proof of this may be found in a perfectly analogous case from Chrysostom, ii, 409. 'Eneidij Tzasa rj yyj tots dxddaproq ^v aTto zoo xa-vou, xai r^c y.vitraTj^^ xai rutv eldwXuaJv aifidriov, xai tujv aXXojv ixoXuaiiihv rihv "EXXrj'^cxuiv. "When the whole earth was, then, defiled by the smoke, and fume, and blood of idol sacrifices, and other pollutions. . . . But Christ having come, and having suffered without the city, he purified the whole earth [Ttdffav rijv yyjv ixddTjpe).-' How this was done is stated, more definitely, iu a few lines preceding: ^EffTa^e yap to a"/xa and t^c TtXeupdq im rrjv yr,v, xdX xov iioXua[x6v aUTYj'^ anavra e^exdOrjpev. " 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 spiear-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; condition 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 tvater, covering all that is under it and purifying every defilement." Therefore he calls the grace of baptism a flood, (' the Lord inhabiicih 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 deep, and kept for most of -a year in this state ; still, it is a patent fact, that this baptism is not regarded iu the reference to the transaction in the passages before us ; but another, and wholly different bap- tism, namely, a purijicaiion 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 THKOUGH SPECIAL INFLUENCE DIVINELY IMPACTED. 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 xari/ir] Nai[idv xai ^^aTZTiaaro Iv rm ' lopSdvrj inrdxt^ xazd to ^rjfia 'E^iffaci J xai i7ziffTpe(/>ev ij odp^ durov wc ffdp^ Tzatdapiou /xixpoo, xal ixa- OapiaO-Q. "And Naaman went down and baptized (purified) himself in the Jordan seven times, according to the word of Elishaj 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. — 11 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 he immersed. That Naaman was immersed is as certain as that the word of God speaks truth. He was enjoined to bathe. Was not his dip- ping a. h\\Mment of the command to bathe?" 4. " If a word is proved to dip one object, it may dip an- other. ISTaaman went down and dipped himself seven times." Carso7i's Points Examined. — 1. "The word (/JaTrrttw) 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." None knows better than Dr. C., that "our version" is not made from the Septuagint, and therefore could not have translated this Greek word — '■'■dip." 2. " The Greek word means dip, because the Hebrew word means dip." Sufch a position has no reliable founda- tion. Of a similar position taken by an opponent — that /Sa7rT:ta» must mean wash, because it fuliils a command given by kouio^ which means to wash — he says (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 w^ord 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 differently, 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 w^hen he utters contradictions. On this general subject, of exact correspondence between the Sej^tuagint 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 to 'purify, l>y using a religious rite, without expressing any definite action,) the Septuagint substitutes the sharply definite act, sprinkle, 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 man}^ 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-xi^ui 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 was 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,! appeal to the usage both of the Hebrew and Greek words in ques- tion. Neither the Hebrew nor the Greek word, for ivash, 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 dip, has, undoubt- BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. 157 edly, "to clip" as its primary meaning; but this does not justify Dr. C. in the dogmatic assertion, based on the word, that a dipping of Naaman took place on this occasion. The word has other meanings. It answers to iSdnrw 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 7^^ and )7DD, in Hebrew, cor- respond with ISdnrco and ^anri^u) 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 i/jLOAuvav rhv y^ixihva ru) aiiian — " and they Stcuncd. 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 spmikle, expressive of purification; and inasmuch as the correspondent Latin, modal verb tingo — sparsa aqua tingere 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!^aaman 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 difler- ingfrom 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 indignantlj' fling in his face those words which the Holy Ghost teacheth, '■'■Lei God be true, but every man a liar I" 4. But one other point remains to be considered. " If 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, "Naa- 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 eflfecting 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 Naaman ? 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 persou ? Is not, strictly speaking, self-clipping 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 Naa- 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 /SaTrn'Cw here expresses puri- fication, then there were scirii 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 seven 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 w'here 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 /JarnCw can be translated he says: "In short, the trans- lators of our Bible have, thcn)selccs, exposed the pretext that there is any difficulty as to the word baptizo. In the case of Naaman, 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 bcqytism, thcd shall be free from objection, and satisfactory even to Baptists themselves.'' If this authority is not sufficient to suffuse 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 ^amiZtu, in the case of the Bev. Richard Fuller, D.D. As to the second statement: that "dip" in II Kings 5:14, is a translation of fianriZto, 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 "Jdiocy " 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 "z< 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 Naaman. . . . 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 commands the very same act. 'Naaman went down and dipped himself seven times (ebap- tizato) in the Jordan.' All concede that this was immersion. Now Jesus commands this very act. . . . The Septuagint says, ISTaaman 'ebaptisato en to lordane.' ... In Matthew 3: 6 we are told that the people, 'ebaptizonto eu tolordane,' 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. It 162 JUDAIC BAPTISM. 3. "Jesus uses the same word, and thus commands tie very same act." The assumption 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 transkitors, 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- siimption that any form of act was ever commanded, being utterly groundless, is "flaw" number /o;di —tv^. '// 5' udpivap-i'^rj xa6apa /|0oT "iiaxa i^ouffa, ^H IleveXoTtTj ^m ttjV ioyqv epysrat. TrjXiiiayoiz de, Xe'tpaq vL(pdixevo<: TzoXtr^^ dXuq, k'uyer ^ASyjurj. 'E6o<; TvuTO 'loudaiwv, cnq xai to TZoXXdxiq km xoi'ttj jSanTt'^^effBac. E^ youv xdxeTvo eipTjTac- ^Iffdc iiTj XouTp^, dXXd voui 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 comes 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 OF 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 (Xnvw") 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- abl}-, 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?j>uw, 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," eftected " 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 shoiver ;'' 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 effected 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 loorpov, washing, is applied. Thus Chrysostom speaks of martyrs "washed (kouovrai) by 12 178 JUDAIC BAPTISM. their own blood." And Origen speaks of be.ng "washed (loti) by 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 Xourpov 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 to 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 symbol 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 one 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 — ^^ durou — udaTi — " wash with water out of it." But Dr. Carson would immerse the priests in the brazen sea, (p. 444,) — " Such things as they ofi'ered for burnt offering, they washed in them; but the sea was for 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 day this was done; or, how many this water purified before it became WASHING THE HANDS BAPTIZES THE BODY. 179 impure, and had to be drawn off, and supplied with ttventy thousand gallons of fresh water, we are not told. Tlie 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 — nXwio, ■Ktpr/.XvXo}^ vitztu) — the last (applied to hand aui^feet 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 Sm with the genitive, and by the use of vdan 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 eff*ected 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 ligure," in the extract from Origen, in reference to sacrifices w^hich preceded "the one and perfect sacrifice." Although these sacrifices differed 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, " tj'pifying 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-couch — 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 interpretar- 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 puriiications 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 zocVjj 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 ^t:} 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 — xoityj ixalaxr^ — and 182 JUDAIC BAPTISM. giving them the precedence in speech.' This interpretation is sustained by Struzius, in his Lexicon Xenophonteam, who describes it as 'lectns qnietis et convivii,' a coucli of repose and feasting. Morell, in his Lexicon Prosodaicura, gives jcXtvTj and xoiTVj 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, ch. vii, and Matt., ch. xv. TertuUian also refers to it when he says, Judaeus Israel quotidie lavat." The second assumption is sutficiently 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 diflerent terms: dTTo Ti^? xazd GU^uyiav y.ot'rrjq — ^artri'^eaOat. Now, can any One, whcu 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 au^oyiav^ in the one case, and in its absence in the other, but in the presence of a:ro in the first passage, and the use of ^^rt in the latter. The use of OTTO, with the noun indicating the source of defilement, from which cleansing has been eftected, is established usage; thus, we have " baptized from [a-b) a dead body," " from (dTTo) the market," "from (ar.u) an evil conscience." The use of ^TT^, under such circumstances, is unheard of. If, then, au^uyiav might be omitted, ano 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 staft' 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 tlie 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 h.a.nd-dipping, 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 — merely 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 — 7nake 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 efiected, 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 of TtoUdxtq. It is well known that the use of T^tjyiirj^ in Mark, has been a cause of embarrassment to translators. The Vulgate, Luther, and the English Bible, translate '■^frequenihj,^' "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. sis, it must be confessed that it is a very remarkable ad- dendum. Alex. D. Le ISTourry (Dissert, ii, in Clementem) makes the following remark on the passage under consideration: "Nostri porro sacri baptismatis imaginem non solum apud Jndseos, sed etiam Gentiles fuisse Clemens noster ostendit. Et apud Gentiles quidem in eo, quod de Penelope et Tele- macho cecinit Homerus Odyss. A' et A'. Apud Judseos autem, quia mos eorum erat, ut ssepe in lecto tingereniur. Sed scite Clemens monet hsec plane imperfecta fuisse baptismata quandoquidem 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 f^ 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 SPRINKLING. 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 scai'let, 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." Scptuagint. Kai -Ksoicifiavti im tov xaSapiaSivTa and Trj<; Xinpai; inraxK; xal xa6apd(; iarat. ' BAPTISM BY SPRINKLING. 185 Interpretation. . . . . " Et intingens passerern vivum in aquas, in quibus san- guinem immolati passeris decurrere fecerat, cum ligno cedrino, lana coccinea, et hyssopo aspergeret septies leprosum, et tunc rite mundaretur. . . . Per lignum vero cedrinum Pater, per hyssopum Filius ; per lanam autem coccineam, quae fulgorem ignis habet, Spiritus sauctus designatur. lis tribus, qui rite mundari volebat, aspergebatur; quia nullus per aquam baptis- matis a lepra peceatorum mundari potest, nisi sub invocatione Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus sancti. . . . Nosque a peccatis nostris, qui per leprosum desigiiamur, per eorum invocationem, et per aquam baptismatis abluit." "Tbe Lord 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 sou] from sin. Where these elements were present, the cleansing, the baptism, was duly performed. But the theory cries out, "Stop, where is the dipping f" 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 80 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 ^anri'^u} had power to efiect 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 SPKINKLING. Psalm 51 : 2, 7. " Wash me thoroughly from my iniquity, and cleanse me from my sin. " Purge mo with hyssop, and I shall be clean : wash me, and I shall be whiter than snow." BAPTISM BY WASHING AND SPRIN'iLING. 187 Septuagint. 'EntTT^.e'cov TzXuvov [le anb rrjq d.vo[iiaq fJ-ou, xal and r^c d/iapTiaower 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 typical 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 POURING 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?" May be nothing; at least we have nothing, just now, to say 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 "dip, 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 JSToah. 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 Red 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 (^aTzriffimrot:. 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," loashed, claims attention. It shows the groundless character of the claim set up by Dr. Carson, that ^ou(u^ or lavo, when no part is specified, shall put the whole man into water or in some waj'- 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 body. 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. None, surely could be so infatuated by theory as to imagine that Origeu 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," ^^ duvafjLcq,") 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 loashing 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 purifjaug 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. Baptisma 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 ivhence 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 effecting 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, offers 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 impossibiliti/ 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. Now, 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 Origeii says that their own blood does baptize all Christian martyrs; therefore, Origeu 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 drippiyig 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. Baptismiim secundum. — This blood baptism was a " sec- ond baptism;" what was the first? Water baptism. ITow, 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 made. 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 diflered 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, afiect the making or unmaking of a blood baptism. Water-baptism and blood-baptism are identified as bap- tisms of like reality and character, (diftering 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 SPEiNKLING. 203 dence. They 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. Neither 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." Now, it is a matter of infinite indifference 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, not when objects are put into it, but when drunk. And the development of this iufluence 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 m" simple" water, just as a soul without a sin-spot differs from a man who is — very wet. Origen's philology is unimpeachable; his 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 aqnarom, etipsa sanetificare concepit." Is it not surprising that the friends of the theory should have overlooked the great gulf which separates baptisms by 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 POURING 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 were cases of 'figure.'" Yes, ver}^ 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. Cj'prian quotes, besides this passage of Ezekiel, those in Numb. 19 : 13; Numb. 8 : 7; Numb."l9 : 19; for the ex- press purpose of showing that the baptizing power of w'ater 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 univocal 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 ? Not 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. CIRCUMCISION BAPTISM. BAPTISM BY CIRCUMCISION. Joshua 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 Egj^pt from off you." Interpretation. Tiq OUV ETi {JLOC TTzptTOlJLTJq Xoyoq UTtO TOO dsOU fJiapTUpTjSivTt. Tiq ixStVOO ToT) liaTtTiffpLazoq ;^/>£t'a dycuj 7:vsup.aTC jSe^anTifffiivaj. "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 'Exehoq Xiyerai deuripav 7:epcTo/j.rjv . . . . ^(j nepiireiiev rj[ia<; aoroq " 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. IleptTOfiij, TUTTtxrj oZaa ttj TzepcTup.^ ruu Xpiarou. " 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 ipsum quod dicitur, quia ho- die abstuli opprobi'ium a filiis Israel. Omnes homines etiamsi ex lege veniant, etiamsi per Moyses eruditi sint, habent tamen opprobrium -lEgypti in semet ipsis, opprobrium peecatorum. . . , Sed ex quo venit Chinstus, et dedit nobis secundam circumcisi- onera per baptismum regenerationis, et purgavit animas nostras, abjecimus haec omnia, et pro iis assumpsimus consciontia3 bonae astipulationem in Domino. Tunc per secundam cii'cumcisionem ablata sunt nobis opprobria jEgypti, et purgata sunt vitia peeca- torum. . . . Audis quia hodie abstulit a te opprobrium ^g^^pti." "We ma}'^ see, however, what means that saying: 'To-day, I have taken away reproach from the children of Israel.' All men, even though they may come from the law, even though the}'^ may have been taught by Moses, have, notwithstanding, in themselves, the reproach of Egypt, 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, 850, 852. Circumcision is a Baptism. JUSTIN MAKTYR. 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- renie 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 dipping 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 altogether 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 included 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 ci^^^m^ aro?<«<5? (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?" Hjis 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, what 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 around 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, nov., just as plain as the death, burial, and resurrection of Noah in the flood, of Israel Avalking 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 sufficiently 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 f" 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 Avould, in very deed as he says that he would, have told the Angel Gabriel, deuj'ing 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 (ia-riZat 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 uncove- 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 ov^er- 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 offers 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 EY 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 thai 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 sooth, 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 Eosicrucian 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 picturCy we have at last 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 Avord 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 angels 214 JUDAIC BAPTISM. and men to deny that there was a " dipping," in the baptism hy the Holy Spirit, received by 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 Christ, 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 sa}', "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 pirinciples 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 ISuTZTi^uj 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 II0I3' 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, typical Baptism. — 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 baptism 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, Gregorj', and Justin forgot to point out the resemblance to death, burial, and resurrection, in this type baptism. 216 JUDAIC BAPTISM. BAPTISM BY DROPS 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." "EiTTa^e yap ro aiij.a arco t^c' ~Xeupa.<; ItzI ttjv yr^v, xai rov /xoXuff/iiv ai)T^(; azavra i^sxdSrjpev, . . . Aia ryq i'^vpukoyrjaeioq ixdSvjpev iaurov rod punou raJv d/Jiaprrj/j.dTajv. "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, 'Remember me' until that by confession ho 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. Kai raura (ia-KTtffotjsv ; . . . wq 8k xai i) T(U'j tpXiwv '^plffiq, dtd rctiv dvatffOijTwv (fuldrrouffa rd ■Kpcuroroxa. "And shall we baptize these (infants) i* Certainlj^; . . . the evidence of this is circumcision, which is a tj'pical seal .... and in like manner, the smearing of the door-jDOsts, protecting, through these insensible things, the first-born." — Gregory Nazi' anzen, ii, 400. Baimapov ujq xaOapruov dvra ndvvwv i]pSiv. 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 publicse 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."— C?/^mn, 1123, 1124. To aifia rou -Kpofjazoo ru~oq too aijiaToq too 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, effected 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 Kazianzen 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 wdiich he extracts from them is this : Inasmuch as typical circum- cision was able to influence the condition of the child, which w^as 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 w^as 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 tlie 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 eflfected 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- l^osis; 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 Baptism. 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 OF 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 things, c/wT^jT/e involves movement; and movement om^ 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" j^^fssed 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 thoroughl}'^ 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." He expounds his "lifting up" upon the cross as designed "to purify the 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 an}' doubt that they believed in such efficac}', or that they could consistently em- ploy such language. The justification of such usage is found in the true nature of iSaTTTt'Cw, 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 bapting 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, 'ETzeiddv Incazd^Tj l/idrta jSd-Tsrat. " When it dvops upou the gar- ments they are dipped (dyed)." Chrysostom uses the same verb and the same preposition to express tfje dropping blood from the Redeemer's side, by which he says 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 imrging of the world, by blood-drops from the cross, to be a baptism. BAPTISM OF 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." Nor 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 an'd 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 writers 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. No 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 every opposer of tlie 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 FIRE. 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 Ecclcsia, per aquara et Spirituni Sanctum quo necesse est baptizari cate- chumenos. Est et aliud baptisma, de quo dicit Dorninus 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 unusquisque mundatur. "Est etiam baptismum in paradisi vestibulo, quod antea non BAPTISM BY FIRE. 223 erat: sed posteaquam peccator exclusus est, ccepit esse romphaea ignea, quam posuit Deus, quae 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, u"t abluantur peccata : per ignem ut exu- rantur. . . . " Quis est qui in hoc igne baptizat ? . . . Hie de quo Johannes ait : ' Ipse vos baptizabit in Spiritu sancto et igne.' . . . Veniet ergo Baptista Magnus, sic enim eum nomino quomodo nominavit Gabriel dicens, (Luc. 1:32,) 'Hie erit Magnus,' videbit multos ante paradisi stantes vestibulum, movebit romphaeam vei'sati- lem, dicet iis qui a dextris sunt, non babentibus gravia peccata: 'Intrate qui prsesumitis, qui ignem non timetis.' . . . Intrate in requiem mcam; ut unusquisque nostrum ustus romphcea 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 weight}^ 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 vitai. . . . Audi Salvatorem ratione ignis et fcrri in duobus locis significantem. In alio loco ait: ' iVon vejii mittere pacem super terram, sed gladium.' In alio vero: ' Tgnem veni mittere super ter- ratTiy et utinam jam ardeat.' Igitur defert utrumque Salvator, gla- dium et ignem, et baptizat qu^ noii 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 shai-pness of the knife nor the mere burning of fire can suffice, 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 : ' / have not come to send peace on the earth hut a sword.' 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. Zb Se nutq irzaviXd-qq eiq tu> napdd-cauv, /jltj (7^pa^i<70s\<; tw ftanrifffiaTc; "H oux ojdaq, on ipXoyiMi] puix(paia riraxTat (puXdaastv rrjv odov zoo ^blou " 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 mg 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 not one." In absolute contradiction of the assertion of this eminent writer, the theory declares that baptism is one. When the theorists take this position, they mean to say that baptism is a lixed 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 tilings 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 case. Water, wine, oil, milk, blood, marsli mud, the receiving elements, may var}'; 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 ^'■not one," then it is 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 theory claims, must ever be "one." 15 226 JUDAIC BAPTISM. # Whatever baptism may be, if Ambrose's decision is worth anything, this Janns-faced theory is worth nothing. Lest any 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: ^^ Midta Qunt genera baptismatum." The theory refuses to give baptism the dignity of a species. It cuts it down to a severe individualism. It is like notJiiiig but itseli"; and when it becomes like any- thing else, it ceases to be itself. " It is dip, and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature." Now, Ambrose not merely rejects the notion that baptism is a thing simple and indivis- ible, ahvays 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 varj-ing 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 " multa genera.^' Were ever opposing views more thoroughly, more broadly, and more universally contradictor}'^ 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 stones, 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 " o? ceremonial purifications, with all the varieties oi sprinklings (water, blood, aslies), and of washings (body, feet, hands) ; and of spiritual pu- rifications, mediate (water imbued with divine powder, 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 purilication. 2. Whatever may have been the manner of using the water, its position in the baptism is that of agency. The ^^ power" to elfect 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. ^5 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 the body 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. instrnnieiitality, or upon any specific character in the result; but is the production of any act, or of any agency, which ia capable of thoroughl}^ 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 oft' those alien elements, "dipping" and "covering," while we bring into order and harmony all those multiplied diversities which enter into the ^^ multa genera baptismatum.'" 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 "Baptisma 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 answering this inquir}^, 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; bat all will say, Martyrdom pro- ceeds from " confession." In other words, the case is a geni- tive subjective, and not objective. The similar phrase, " Bap- tisma 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 over 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, diflering from the other two, is adduced to sustain the same general position, " Baptism is 7wt 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 lire, all that entered Paradise would have been very promptly dipped into the fire; but, alas ! the statement is "a liery 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 « 6^?)>/>?7?^ ;" 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 tliat, (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 hnninous 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 honest I/.'" (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 — (he 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 flt for the kingdom 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 welTwith a water dipping or with a flood covering. All this nmy be true; but then, Ambrose and Origen may not know what a baptism is, (not having j-et gone to school at Tuhbermore;) 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 Noah in the ark, of Israel in the dried-np sea, and of the Apostles in 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 iiery 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 Bapiizer." Not 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: "lie 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 w-ater." 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 loater, 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 lie believed that he dipped them into w^ater. 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 figurativel}^; 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 tlie giving of a title grounded on the abundant doing of that which he did not believe was ever done at all. And as for " dip[)ing into fire," it may be observed, 1. The use of the preposition in 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 any 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, consequent!}', 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 dipj^ed 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. Here, 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 who 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 by 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 iipsi/ 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 purifying 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 hardfonght fiGld — 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 ofler it to Dr. Carson as an addi- tional case W'here 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%(o. 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, differ 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 o^ dip, and think that immerse can do them more valiant service, let them frankly confess their change of ground, and stick to it loith 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 ? 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, nia}^ have heen 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- ordinary 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 jSutttc'^uj^ dip and nothing but dip. 2. No 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 by the inter- pretation of the law which he would bind on others. In adducing evidence for a secondary meaning to /3a7rrw, 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 (iaTzzi'^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, gladiuni et ignem, et baptizat qu^ non potuerunt Spiritus Sancti purilicatione purgari." — "Therefore, the Saviour brings forth both the sword and the hre, and baptizes what [dejilements, faults, sins) could not be purged by the purifica- tion of the Holy Spirit." The argument from this passiige is: 1. "The purification of the Holy Spirit " is, in Patristic conception, baptism by loa.ter 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 "puffed 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, b.oth 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. "Shoulders, breasts, legs of sacrificial victims?" No. "Basins, pots, uten- sils of an}' kind?" No. What then ? Dejilements, faults, sins, "which could not be purged by the purification b}' the Holy Spirit." Now test tVie primary meaning attributed to pami^u), (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 possibilit}', 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 experimeniam 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 deeply, I will quote an analogous case adduced by President Halley, {Sacraments, i, 454,) as the highest possible proof to determine a secondary meaning for /Sarrrw. " Although Dr. Carson has said enough to satisfy his brethren that ^dTZTcu 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 jDroof of a com- jplete 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 wool, 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 piayle, — 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 Tt^ aXXa '/pwiJ.ara ^aTZTrj, idv ri xai raura. ' W^hethcr 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 ^dnru) in the passage does not, and cannot mean to dip, as the color cannot be dipped, whatever may be done with the wool. Another case is found in Lucian [Cynic, p. 1106), ol rijv -op- 238 JUDAIC BAPTISM. (pupw^ /Sd7rTovT£(;, ' thosG dj'eiiig iJie purple.' Tliis syntax I hold to be demonstrative of a secondary meaning." Professor Wilson, Royal College, Belfast, speaking of this principle and its value as testimony to a secondary mean- ing, says : " That (^d-rw denotes io di/e, 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 pri-nciple, 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 pa-rcj. It may, therefore, be re- ceived without suspicion, and acknowledged as a universal principle ingrained in the elements of language. We can say, dip iDOol, 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 dj/ed. So we may say, dip (supposing this to be, as claimed, the meaning of ^aTzri^w) 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 Origeu does say that the Lord Jesus dips (baptizes) sins, (represented BAPTISM BY A COAL OF FIRE. 239 in "quse"); 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 he 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 ^a-ri'^ut 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 OF FIRE. Isaiah 6 : 5-7. "Then said I, "Woe is mo ! 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." Interpi'eiation. "Lege mandata Legis, et invenies scriptum : Quia vivens si mortuum contigerit, inquinaiur (Numb. 19:11). . . . Indigemus ergo purgatione, quia tetigimus mortuos (Numb. 19 : 1). . , . Omnes contigimus mortuum. Quis enim gloriabitur castum se habere cor, aut quis audebit dicere mundum se a peccatis ? Sit ahquis fortassc qui in sermone non deliquerit .... tamen in medio peccatorum versatur, necesse habet etiain 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 purgnlion, 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 maybe 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 alwaj^s 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 carbonibus ignis de altari, quod est contra Dominum (Leviticus 16 : 12). Logimus et in Isaia, quia igne purgatur propheta per unum ex Serapbim, quod mis- sum est ad eum, cum accepit forcipe carbonem unum ex his qui erant super altare, et contigit labia prophetse, et dixit: '■ Ecce abstuli iniquitates tuas.' Mihi videntur mystica hiBC esse, et hoc indicare, quod unicuique secundum id quod peecat, si dignum fuerit purificari eum, inferantur carbones membris ejus. Nam quoniam dicit propheta hie: ^ Imnnmda labia habeo, in medio quoque popxdi immimda labia habentis habito,' idcirco carbo for- cipe assumptus a Seraphim, labia ejus mundat, quibus solis 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 iind said, ^Behold I have tahen 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. For 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 FIRE. 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 from 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 worni shall not die, and their fire shall not be quenched.' (Isaiah 66 : 24.) Therefore, this fire is theii'S 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. BaTtriauv fie, rm iJ.iXXovra ^anrO^eiv rohq TziffrebovTaq di u^aroq, xaX IhsoiJ.aro'Zy xo} ■Kupd'Z' udarc duvap.ivoj d-i)7:Xuvac raJv d/j.apz'.wv tov jSop^opov Uveuparc, duvap.ivaj zobi; ^tnxou^, izveuparuohq dmpydffaaOar rtupl, TreipuxoTt xaraxacscv ra? r&v dvofj.Tj/j.dTwv dxd\iOaq. "Baptize me, who am about to baptize them that believe, b}' water, and Spirit, and fire; by water, possessing power to wash away the filth of sins; by Spirit, possessing power to make the earthly spiritual; by fire, possessing a nature to burn up the thorns of transgressions." — Gregory Thaumaturgus, x, 1188. Zep/jvoq — ov perd TrXstffTrjv j3affdvwv UTZopo^/rjV, xeyaXrj'; d~oroprj xoXoaSrjvai Xoyoq i/£t. Kai yuvauwv 5k '^Hpa'iiq k'ri xara^^oupivi], to ^d^KTiffpa, &<; nou ^rjff}v auToi;, TO did TTupo-; Xa/SoLxra rov jScov i^eXijXuSev. " 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." — Eusebius, ii, 532. AMBROSE. The purification from 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 heifer 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 mr,n will do. To deny the applicability of the term 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, the^^ are 'red;' but being 6/a(?A;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 1 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 notliing- but a dipping;" and when they are told, by Jews, that a baptism is effected 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 possible 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 aiiy one must make, when a -word has been lixed with a single aTid exclusive meaning in the mind, when that word is presented in circumstances which create meanings the most opposite and inconsistent with that meaning which w^e 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 /JaTrrttw, 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 efi:ecting 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 :hat his mind was full 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, certainl}', 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 effected 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 he 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 apjilied 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 w^ho give their whole bodies to sin, instead of giving them to the Lord, and of needing baptism by a different fire. This fire, he says, may be that "fiery stream" which was seen by BAPTISM BY A COAL OF 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 (tire) for a dipping,'"' or not, I cannot tell. I suppose, however, not many would volunteer "to go down into " the fiery stream, to oflficiate 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 bodv. This is his lano-ua^e: "I fear lest we deserve the tire not for pariicular 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 tire. " Another fire." Not 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 otl" the altar," and that which was by fire not from the altar. The first is "tire of the Lord," the last is "tire of the sinner." Inasmuch as these fires are agencies, and their eftect 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 Ba.ptism — The extract from Gregory Thaumatur- 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. But such mischievous interpretation is effectually arrested by the sut)stitutiou of the genitive in the place of the dative. That is the case here. The baptism is effected dl bdaroq — msu/iaroq — -y/x)?. There is no possibility of transforming this water, sjnrit, Jire, into anything else than agency. 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 ^j odaro? into ^i' udarc; 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 Std TTveu/jLaruc; is no more ^v mtuiiart than is a circle a square; deepen the fire-river until its bed rests on the centre t)f the globe, and dip the hapless sinner into its lowest depths, and Sia -nupdq is as far removed from iv r.opi as by 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 duva/iivu} with these terms. To be baptized " by the power of water," " by the 2')0wer of the Spirit," " by the nature of fire," as expres- sive of simple enclosure in loater, 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 qualifying 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, instrumentally. Wine is not the element in BAPTISM BY A COAL OF FIRE. 247 which the baptism is effected, but the means by which. Drugs are not the element in which the man is put to sleep (bap- tized), but by lohich. Questions, magical arts, hard study, taxes, debts, grief , famine, Q.V& not elements in which men are bap- tized, but means by lohich 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 ^dnriu 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. Ba-ptism by the fire of martyrdom. — Herais, a female cate- chumen and yet unbaptized by water, w^as put to death by fire, as a disciple of Christ. But the historian says : " She received that baptism which is by tire." Water baptism, ordinarily, was essential to salvation, because it was believed that there was a " power" in the water to take away sin from the soul. It was, 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 tire." The baptism had nothing, whatever, to do wnth the mode or extent of the application of the blood or tire to the body. These things were only the signs, or means of death. In death by tire the body was, more or less, enveloped by the flames, perhaps never absolutely, but this was 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 yve find nowhere a baptism in a receiving element; we find every- where, under every form of action, baptisms effected by agencies possessed of power to control completely 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 WATER, BY SPIRIT, AND BY FIRE. 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." Sepiiiagint. "On -xnXuvet xvpio<; zov puTTov tcov vlwv xcCi tcov Suyaripujv Zttbv, xal to aipa ixxadapisl ix piffou aurcov^ Iv TzvebiMart xpia^wq xai Tzveupari xauffecu^. Interpretation. ^Ensi youv d.ii(p(>Tepa ffuvTiiJisv 6 Kuptoq, to re i^ o8aTo<; el<; fiETavotav, xai ra ix lIveupaToq ei^ dvayivvrjffiv, xai 6 koyoq acvtafferac dpfo- repa rd PaTzriapara. Mrjirvre rpslg elaiv al enivoiai too (iaTZTiffpaTo^^ o TS TOO ^(jTzoo xaOapifTp.d^, xa\ rj otd too UveupaToq dvayi]>vrjffc<;, xai i) kv Tut nupl T^c xpurewq ^Sdaavoq. "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) bat once, while Basil, following the Hebrew more closely, repeats it, — Iv -vevixan xpiffsioq xai iv 7:>eu!xari y.avffewq. It is admitted that Iv 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 {l-/.TzXuve't) and purging out (^hxaSaptei'j in (^v) a spirit of judgment and in (^i-) 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 exemplilied 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, find 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, TO St T^vs-vixazi xpiGewq xai Tzveu/iart xauaewq, 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 comfort from the previous use of ^v, 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 odan becomes ^? oda- roq; Iv Trvsujiart becomes ix nveufxaroq • iv ru) nupi becomes Sid too Ttupoq, and ix TOO Tzupoq; iv T:v£o/j.aTt xaoaewq becomes Sid T/^q too ■KvebixaToq xabatwq; 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 eondi- iion is an ever-present element, and dipping, never. 1. Piirification : a condition of purity induced, by the ap- propriate means, from either Judaic ceremonial impurity, or from the defilement of "lighter" 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 /Jarrrj'Cw. And yet the Archbishop of Csesarea, the first among Greek Pa- triarchs, furnishes us with something that looks very much BAPTISMS — MENTAL AND xMORAL. 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. Keligious 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 difierence 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, difi^ered from that treated of by Plutarch and his as- sociates. These /re baptisms throw their light far and wide; but their lis^ht is darkness to the theorv. BAPTISMS— MENTAL AND MORAL. 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. EuXo'j ^ EXi(Tu^cbv dtd ^uXou, Icp" ou Tii-nov^tv 6 (}iuydq dvdyetv dw^dixevoq, dxokouduuaaq dvudto tjj iaurou. " 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." — Irenceus, 1243. OuToq (u araupoq) dizo too j3o6od ri^q xaxiaq r^p-aq avdaitdaaq. "This (the cross) drawing us up from the depth of deprav- ity." — Chrysostom, ii, 407. BAPTISM OF THE AXE. 253 "Invocavit Eliseus Domini nomen, et de aqua ferrum aecuris ascendit qnod demersuin fuerat. Ecce aliud genus baptismatis. 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 deniersed 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, iii, 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. tication. 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 large 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 physical 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 mersed. Time of continuance cannot be introduced as an additional element determining 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 foreign 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 different 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 OF 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? Nothing 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,) — Avere 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 purificaiion. 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 is no exempli- 256 JUDAIC BAPTISM. fication of the act of dipping in the axefalliiig, yet the word 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 over/low, 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 stor}', 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 — " ITo dippin-g in me;" on the other — "No 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 We 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 ita 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 tiiink 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 difierent class, namely, those in which the envelopment is oversliadowed by its result, and is of no value except as causative of that result. To illus- trate : Suppose one of the sous 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. Now 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 why, 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 wet, it is dam}) 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 7r«D arw 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 SINS. 259 ment is subsidiary to influeuce ; 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 eft'ects?" 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 showing 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 np, 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 Mjject 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 their continuance. The axe would have continued at the 260 JUDAIC BAPTISM. bottom of Jordan, until this liour, had it l)een 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 ab 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. None 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 (ianriZu) ? 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 miidition? 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 dipped; 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; ai]d, 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 sphei-e of this word, that it forms the basis for its secondary use, to express trivial operations and influences of the mind. ]^o word is more thoroughly re- moved from the sphere of /3a--£Ca>, 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 difierent in meaning from q y.ai Tjiiaz (ie^aizTtaixivouq ralg ^apurdra.tz a[xafjriaiz. 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 ^anriZw. 2. That both em- ploy this nude form to express the agency by which tiie 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, certainl}^, 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 ejnploys 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 dippi)>g, 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 will " make it find him one in the sands of the desert." No wonder, then, when this Chissic 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 DejJih of Error." 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- tullian speaks of the element, 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, praj- 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? Not an infant; that could be dipped, but the theory don't like the baptism of little children. Then let it be a full-grown adult, and he can help dip himself by that peculiar mode, known to the theory, of 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 the 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 witliout such metamorphosis. If" Sin " is to ofiici- ate as a dipper into ivater 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. . . . atid tne they calVd Hin I " Fearful administratrix this ! But, alas ! none other can BAPTISM IN THE DEPTH OF ERKOR. 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? "l!^o." Is he washed? "No." 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 TertuUian? Was there ever a greater rhetorical and logical blunder than the conversion of " error" into a pool of water? This " error" of Tertulliau 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 knovv 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- euvelopment to solve the difficulty. 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 elem^jj^ts 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 xn^suhject to the con- trolling influence 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" — " inpeccato" — "m blasphemia" — " in dementia." Souls mersed in darkness — in sin — in blcts hemy — in dementia — are other cases of baptism spoken of jy Ter- tullian, which demonstrate the ineptness of a watCi-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 pool 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- siou in any one element which can shadow forth these varied baptisms. It is impracticable to get a varied element ap- propriate to each. AVe 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, " blaspbemy " 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 ^aTtriXu). And if ever /3d-Tw lost in the course of usage the act of dipping, (originally its grand and sole characteristic,) then, ^aTtzi^u) 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 JBaptismaiis." "When Ambrose speaks of "another kind of baptism," he is not speaking, like Justin, of a baptism which, while differ- in or 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 affixed 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 tbis seal is that of "Ambrose;" tbe superscription is — ■ "Aliud genus baptismatis." Was anything ever more ut- terly removed from a dipping tban 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 baptism, but condition marked by completeness and indefinite continu- ance. The axe hy 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 ct)iidition, without envelopment, is, and is well termed a baptism. Similar baptisms with this latter one may be found in Classic Bap- tism (pp. 325, 329). The iirst 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 physical things, an envelopment is essential to a baptism. Completeness of condition, with indefiniteness 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 ruinous 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, 31. "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 clothefl shall abhor me." BAPTISM BY POLLUTION. 269 Translation. Kai Tore iv 8iapd 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 tameu me irapurissimum 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 t-' with the ele- ment within whicli a mersion takes place. And as it is quite common for Jewish Avriters 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 with, 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 : 'havux; iv ^unu) [js k^aizaa^. Here ^zavw? seems to qualify rather an effect — that of smear- ing, than an act — thut of dipping. The use of iv instead of dq strengthens the conclusion, that the object was not to be dipped into filth, but to be polluted by it. 270 JUDAIC BAPTISM, BAPTISM OF DESTRUCTION. Psalm 9:15. "The heathen are sunk down in the pit that they made. Translation. il'JaTZTcrrOrjffav. "Demersae sunt gentes in in teritu quern fecerunt." — Jerome, ix, 1133. Interpretation. The Greek translator who here employs l^anrH^a) 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 Septuagint by fidTZTu). The Hebrew has two words, ^3iP and j75^5 more nearly resembling each other, both in form and in sound, than do /SttTTTw and [ianri'^w. These Hebrew words present the same^ parallelism of difterences, in their usiige, with that exhibited by the Greek words, as also with that of the Latin words iingo and mcrgo, and the English words dip and immerse. It is obvious that the word iu this passage could not pos- sibly be represented by ^dnrw^ 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, they 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 — " deraersse sunt in interitu — they were dernersed in destruction." Geseuius, in speaking of the relation of this word to words in other languages, says: "The primary sj-llable is here 3D, which, in the occidental languages, also has the signification ^f depth and of immersing. Compare the Gothic diap, the German iief, and the English deep." While the Hebrew, and the Greek, and the Latin, has BAPTISM OF DESTKUCriON. 271 each two native words to express the two diverse ranges of thought, unhappily the English has not. The former He- brew word, and the Greek /Ja;rrw, the Latin t'mgo^ and the English dip^ are as like to each other as though they were all Shaksperiau Dromios. But when the latter Hebrew word is mated with ^ar.ri'^ut and mergo, the English language cannot offer any like-featured, native-born Antilochus, as their counterpart. Hence the embarrassment of translating /5a7rrt'Cw, 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. Bat, 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 difierent 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, Avere 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 complaiu if, instead of forcing a new role 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 difiiculty 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(jito 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 SUFFEKING Psalm 69: 1, 2. " Save me, God! for the waters have come in unto ray soul. "I sink in deep mire, where there is no standing: I am come into deep waters, where the floods overflow me." Translation. 'E^anriffdTjv ei^ d-TtspavTouq xara^uasiq^ xai oux k'ffTi OTaaiq. " 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." — Symviachus. ^Evendyrjv el^ iXbv l3u6ou . . . xai xaracyii; xarenovrcffi fis. " 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. Interpretation. 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 (iaTtriZw. It could, by no pos- sibilit}', be represented by ^anru). The Septuagint does not use ^anriZoi in translating, but it repudiates ^dnTio 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, and 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 par.riZu) could have done, and, in ad- dition, is so complaisant as to tell us how it was done, on which point ^anzi%w 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 the 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 transhite by mergo expressing condition; but he employs a word which gives position to the baptized object. This posi- tion /5a;Trw could never give, (for it can give "position" to nothing, as dipping is an unresting movement,) but jSaTTTt^w (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^_9'Mr^, 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 SINCEEITY. 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 8unt qui vere baptizantur in lacte, qui sine dole credunt, et BAPTISM OF SINCERITY. 275 puram fidem deferunt, ut immaciilatani 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 are 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. J'ranslaiion. I have translated " in lacte," with milk, 1. Because the Patrists use the preposition in this sense, times without 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 milk of the word." Irenseus (931), speaking of the corrupters of divine truth, lii^ens 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 uuctus est, et ipsa unctio in qua uactus est. Et unxit quidem 276 JUDAIC BAPTISM. Filter, nnctus est vero Filius, in Spiritu, qui est unctio . . . significans et unguentem Patreni, 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 in, 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 m 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 m 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." Now, 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 set forth bj 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 putting 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" employs " 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 ej'es; cease to do evil; "Learn to do well; seek judgment; relieve the oppressed j judge the fatherless ; plead for the widow." Inierpreiation. Aid. ToT) XooTpoT), ouv T^? /leravina^ xal t^? yvwtreux; too 6eou, o . . . . o Tzporjydpeus to jSd-TC(j;j.a Ti yap 6eu8o<; does not consist in the position, that words in true and pure figure liave the same meaning as in literal use, but in overlooking what he had pointed out to Gale, the secondary meaning of lidnTu). 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 (Kubner, p. 403) respecting a double accusative. And this would have saved him from misleadino; the confidins: English reader by the statement, '■^ I will dip you in verjnilioji, 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 di/e you a Sardiau di/e," or ''I will color you 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 ^ar^ri^w 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 "efl^'ects,"- 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 iSd-Kzco, to dye, based on the effects of /Ja/rrw, to dip, and is not such use secondary and diverse from the former? And, yet, we are told that while BAPTISM OP THE BODY AND OF THE SOUL. 281 ^Sanri^u} means "to clip, 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 Nebu- 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. Tlje "ffesh 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 {Std) 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, " by 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 dilfereuce 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 one 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 not 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), and not be dlpjjed 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 (intusposition) in wine, and not be baptized (made drunk) by wine. A man may be bap- tized (made drunk) by wine, and not be baptized (intusposi- 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 Autau, " to hide thouofht." BAPTISM OF THE BODY AND OF THE SOUL. 283 Jerome well understood this distinction, when he speaks, in the quotation made, of baptism bj the blood of Christ — ut baptizimini in sanguine meo. "In," being here used, as in numberless cases, with the agenc3\ 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 wrater, 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 drj- 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." Sepiuagint. :^ xapdia fiou nXavarac, xai ij dvofxifL jis /JaTrrj^e:, ■^ ^^XV f^^^ i^'^'^' Ttjxev eig and ^i') used by Paul, without showing that they meet to- gether on this occasion, and without any such statement 298 JUDAIC BAPTISM. by the Apostle. And against what proof to the contrary ia this adduced? "Why against the statement by Moses, as expHcit 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. Not 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 oi ^anriZu) ? Is it not the easiest word in the Greek language to translate? Does it not always 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 the 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. Now, may we ask of the theory, which is so rich in Classic lore, and so tenacious of the heathen rights of /Janrt'^w, 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 /Jarrtt^, 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 /JaTrrw shall ofiiciate, "The person dips himself; therefore it is ftd-no^ to dip, and not ^aKti'^ui^ to cause to dip." (Carson, p. 30.) But here we have some millions "dipping" themselves, and it is (iar.ri^u)^ and not ^dizTU)^ 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 I^ew 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 INTEKPRETATION 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 iSaTrrw and jSaTTTt^iw^ 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. PATKISTIC INTEKPKETATION 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 Hebrew 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 ^i', 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 " wi the night" — "m the day;" yet not so well as through the night, during the night, nightly, bg night, &c. But "in columna lucis" — "in colurana nubis" cannot be translated, "m a pillar of light" — "m a pillar of cloud." ITeither Moses nor the people were in the pillar of tire, or cloud, as a fact. But Moses did, in fact, lead the people bg 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 piHar 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 drowned ; 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 efi'ected, and not as an end in which somethintc 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 JSgypiiayis, 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 agenc}- 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 difl'ers 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 eifect 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 oflice 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, for there are none. The nominative case declares their character as agents. Faith, also, is said to be efit'ected by them, aud 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 MDSES. 305 is changed for a ^Yord expressing, by original use, the mean- ing which the Greek word had secured, only, through appro- priation to religious rites. DIDYMUS ALEXANDRINUS. 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 cxlo. INSPIRED INTEEPRETATION OF THE RED 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 Trdvreq e^c t6v MtuOffr^v k^aTztiffavro h r^ vetpiXrj xai Iv ttj taXdaffiq. 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 Scd, 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 oft'er is not condemnable on the score of lacking any of the elementary features of a baptism. 2. The translation of iv. — That ivith, or bg, 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 iv, in. I may be asked. Do you deny that it may be translated loith? 1 do not deny this, yet I am still disposed to lay stress upon it." (p. 121.) " The preposition is often to be translated loith, Ijut in the sense bg, grammarians themselves acknowledge it to be rare." (p. 330.) Patristic writers — Greek and Latin — use ^1^, and in, with an instrumental sense, much more fre- quently than do Classic writers. The same usage is exhib- ited in the Septuagint. In Nehemiah 9 : 12: "Thou leddest them in the day bg a cloudy pillar; and in the night bg a pillar of fire." And Ps. 78 : 14: "In the daytime, also, he led them loith a cloud, and all the night ivith a light of fire." And in Ps. 77: 20: "Thou leddest thy people like a flock, bg the banc? 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 ^i'. 3. Unless this translation be correct, and Iv 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 wiihinness, 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, trul}^ 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 influence 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, "m the cloud." There is historical evidence to BAPTISM INTO MOSES. 309 the contrar3\ There is no historical evidence to show that Paul uses ^v rfj 6aldaiA' ej'c Jipifftov rov —oirjcravza." 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 — ^a-Kn'^oij.eia eit; abzb — it is not proper that, on that account, he be ranked with God; for some were baptized into Moses : dq zov MwOffr^v Tcveq i^anriah^aav." He concludes, after argument, "So, although any one be baptized into Moses — Tt? £i? MwuaviV £J3a7:Tiffe7j — 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 — to voiiubv jSaizrcffiia — he says: 'They were baptized into Moses' — ii3ar.ria6ri(Tav sl^ zov iMwuffr^v." " Moses was a type, not of the Spirit, but of Christ." ISTo one I think can doubt but that these learned Grecians believed in a baptism i7}to Moses. While there is no evidence that they had ever heard of a baptism into emj^ti/ 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 l^aTziZw 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 purpose of drowning them. "Baptize it into milk," for the sake of its emollient influence. "Baptizing it into blood," for the piuyose 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 difiier; 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 tilled 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 Avithin 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 ecq Mwvar^v^ 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 w^ith 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 wdiat the exigency of the case demands. Moses had just been appointed, as he claimed, by divine authority to be head 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, betvveen 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 influence of Moses in his divine mission. In making this declaration the apostle merely repeats, in other terms, the identical sentiment uttered by Moses himself, "And the people believed the Lord 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 EIVER DIVIDED BY MIRACLE. BAPTISM BY THE JORDAN. II Kings 2 : 8. " And Elijah took his mantle, and wrapped it together and smote the waters, and they were divided hither and thither, so that they two went over on dry ground." Interpretation. . . . ^Ev Tai ^ lopddvrj (Sa7ZTi(rdp.£voi;, ^ne) rrjv dC udaroq Tcapado^oripav did^affiv ^dnriffjxa, a*<; irpoizapsHiieia^ (hvofiaasv 6 IlauXoi:;. . . . " But this, also, is to be observed, that Elias, when about to be received vip into heaven, having taken his mantle, and wrap- ped it together, he smote the water, which divided hither and thither; and they both passed through, to wit, he and Elisha; 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 mor^ 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. . . . ^ HXiaq dvaXufilSdverac, dXX' 6u X'^P'-'^ udaro<^ • Tzpwrov yap dca- §aiv£L rbv 'lupddvrjv, elra imziqXarel rbv obpavov. . . . " 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 (^Sca) the sea, and deliverance of the world from sin is by means of {did), 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 (dta/Satvet) 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 oi' (did) water. And the laver placed within the tabernacle was a symbol of baptism." — Cyril, 433. Translation. The translation of h ra> Uopdayq 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 rd) 'lopddvfj does not, of any necessity, involve a particle of water. 2. More than this : jSaizTiZio may be conjoined with the phrase ^i^ rd) 'lopddvrj^ 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 — "m the Jordan " — we cannot possibl}^, hereby, know the quo modo of the baptism. If any theorist should be told that "two men were baptized in the Jordan," and asked, if he could tell hoiv it was done ? the answer would be prompt, and in the language of Carson, " Certainlj^ I know how it was done. They were either dipped 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 ^ar.zi'^io 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 lire,) 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 iu 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 Elias, fitting him for heaven, is a matter of express statement. That this change of condition was effected, 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 ?n^?isposition. i);to'posi- tion there was, or rather \\\X(i.vmoiion. But I have never understood that the one or the other was a baptism. 3. No ph3^sical 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, Ehas was baptized through the influence of this sacred stream, purifying him and making him meet for heaven. The hol}^ 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 " ofience " 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 eflected 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 ^anriZw 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 shov.'n 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 EIia8 and of Elisha, are of this character. As from wine, drunk, there proceeds an intoxicatiaig-baptizing influence; and as from an opiate, eaten, there proceeds a soporific-baptizing influence; so, from loalking between the divided w^aters 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 secm^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 ivalking doiun one side of the river, and ivalking 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 KIVER BY MIRACLE. 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 Loi-d 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 Jeeu 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 Eubrura transierunt .... quod per baptismum eclebratur." "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." — Origen, ii, 847. "On elTrev av xoiX izepi raurqq 6 TlabXoq' Ou OiXtu u/xd^ dyvoelv, ddsX^ot, ore ol TTaripec tj^lcuv 7rdvTe<; dcd rou Wopddvuu dcr^XSov, xa] nd^re^ ei'c Ton 'iTjffouv ifdanrlaavro Iv tci> nvsunarc, xai Tzorafiu). "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 dk £l<; 'lyjffouv ^nrtaixa^ iv tw dXrjdw^ yXuxel xai noTiiioi Tzorafiw, TioXkd e^es itap ixe'ivo i^aipera. . . . 'Ev ydp rui ^anriffaaiai sl<; 'Irjffouv yvu)0djji£6a, on Seo^ l^wv iv ijp.lv Iffn. "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 and potable river, has many choice things above that. . . . And Joshua saii to the people, 'Sanctify yourselves, for to-morrow 21 822 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 eight of all Israel, that they may know that as I was 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 (jtepisxaSacpev) the children of Israel." — Origeyi, iv, 277. LIKENESS AND UNLIKENESS TO THE RED SEA BAPTISM. There are very obvious points of similarity, and some of dissimilarity, between this Jordan baptism and the lied 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 with 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 *' in nube " or "sm6 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 charact(fr is instrumental in its accomplishment: but the other has run away and " immersed itself in the abj'sses of the sea — maris gurgitibus fuissei 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. No enemies are pressing on from be- hind. The privations of the wilderness have all ceased. ■ The land of promise is before them. How different this baptism at high noon, from that baptism b}^ deep midnight! How dijfferent 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 baptister}- is gone, what shall be done for a dipping? I cannot tell; unless, indeed, after the hard experience of the theor}^ it should conclude to share in that, only, immersion of which Origen speaks, and float down with the onflowins: waters until it should find welcome rest, — ^^ Salsi maris gurgitibus immersa.^' !N"o 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. N. 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 ORIGEN. 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-mer were a baptism into Moses, the latter must be a baptism into 324 JUDAIC BAPTISM. Joshua. As the exigencies of the case demauded 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 ^anrl^u) ek. 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," ni}' 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 {}v) the baptism into Jesus we know that the living God is in us." Now, 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 olDJect to Origeu'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 ynerges 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 bow 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 ^aTtri^io 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 bod}' as that in which the soul is mersed. 2. This phrase, ISuttt'Xuj ev, is employed with varied signifi- cance. (1.) In the rare use just indicated, — " the soul hap- tized in (^v) the body." (2.) Expressing locality, place where the action occurred. Origen speaks in this connection, of a baptism "in (^w) Bethabara," simple locality. ('3.) It ex- presses a period of time within which a baptism took place. Hippolytus speaks of a baptism "m (_^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 (^i') a calm." 4. It indicates the agency or instrumentality by which a baptism is effected. Origen says, the baptism under consideration was " by (Iv) 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 ^v 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 '■Hnness" I remark that this confronts us with these trifling embarrassments. (1.) Making two baptisms out of one "in the Holy Spirit" and "in water.'" (2.) One in a j)erson and the other in a thing. (3.) The one a spiritual baptism, the other a ph^^sical 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 Holy 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 cue bereft of his reason, to say, that all Israel were baptized in water, when the miracle was wrought to keep them out of the water. If such are the results of attributing to iv 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 — ^apiffiia dtd 'HXloof and it is added, "he received the gift by the spirit of Elias upon him — xapiaixa kv r^veuiiazi 'HXiou If iaurdv/' Here Scd and ^v seem to be used, substantially, with the same force. And this suggests the perfectly parallel passage re- specting ;^a/>£'<7/A«^«, given by the Holy Spirit — '^i Scd zoo llvau- [laroq didorac Xoyuq aofia'Z . . . aXXiu di ^apiff/iara iaixdrwv^ hv rd) abru) IJ>euiJ.ari. Here, again, we have Sid and Iv hitorchanged, 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 emploj-ed 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. SACEIFICE CONSUMED BY MIKACLE. 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 bai-rels 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 ho 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." IJdOev ds Ufj.Jv TzentffreusTM ^HXiav ftaTzrcffeiv rov IXeuffoiie'^ov^ ouds rd ln\ TO. TOO Ouaiaarrjpiou ^uXa^ xaTO. rohq zoo ^ Ay^aa^ ypuvoot;^ Sed/is'^a Xourpuu, I'va kxxauSfj l7:iwo.i'ivTu<; kv nup) too Ilupcou, p>aT:Tt(7a'^~o<;] ^E~cxeXsusTac yap Tol? hptuai TuuTO noiYjffac. . . . ^0 ruivuv fj.ij auTifZ [icuzrlaai^ roxz^ . . . Tzibt; ^anriZtiv e/isXXe ; Apc-ffro^ ouv dux iv vdari fiaTzri'^tt, dXX" 6i /j.aS7jTat durou' kauTu) 8e T7]pel to ayiut UvsuiiaTi [iarcTi'^eLv xai nupi. " 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. 829 to baptize, since he 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, iv, 241. "Edsc^sv ^HXiaq rod lianriafiaToq tyjv l(7-/hv l~\ zoo ^oj/jloo tu)v 6XoxauTiu- fiaTwv 6u did TOO zupu^, dXXd di udaro^ rijv Sufftav oXoxauTaxra^. . . . "Elias has shown the j)0wer of baptism b}' burning the sacrifice upon the altar of burnt-offerings, not by means of fire, but by means of water. For although the nature of fire is opposed to that of Avater, j'et when the water is mj^stically poured, thrice, .upon the altar, the fire begins, and kindles a flame, as though it were oil." — Basil Magnus, iii, 428. ^E^to Tpclq l-ix).V(reiq xard toj'^ ffyiddxwv, alq xahtpwau) rr^-^ Suffiav, vSart Tiup syeipujv, zo —apado^ozazov ; xal zoh^ Tzpo^ijza<; xaza^aXut zr^q di^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 JVaz., 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 raanaret 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 coelum aperuit. . . . Nemo enim nisi per aquam et Spiritum ascendit in regnum coelorum." "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 ^T^ivii."— Ambrose, i, 727, 728. EXPERIMENTUM CRUCIS. This baptism of tlie altar furnishes a crucial test for the theory. I have uever 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 dip," 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 dr.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 walls, 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. W"e 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 baptism 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 was 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 iSann^ut, 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 vsatisfy 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" {louTpou) 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 {^aizriZw) 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 iBanri^ta 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 Nebuchadnezzar 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 Jtowing tide, falling dew, and pouring water, that ^^ ^aizTi'^m 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 conch must 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 tind the water and do the dipping." Such statements fully justify us in saying: "If this Carrael 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. "Ji! is a drench, surround, steep-baptism." — 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 of ^aTtriZw 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 and 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. 336 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 up," 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 aflably sa3's: " 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: " /< 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 tilling 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 i\\Q: effect 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 ^a-KriZw means" — an efiect. . . . "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 "efiect," on this mountain top. The "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 affirms 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. R. 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 ofit', 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 experinientum crucis 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 difiiculties 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. Kot 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 ^aitriZio as used by Origen in this case has nothing to do with a "dipping" as claimed by Carson. The conversion of the acts of " flowing,' " falling," " poui"- 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 ra SsS/ieva 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 f^aTzri^co 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 ^a-Kxi^u} is expounded by -rd dediieva Xoorpov, — " 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 a 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 o^ 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 w^ake 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 w^ork wrought upon them" need not feel so very much alarmed. BASIL MAGNUS. The " effect" which Dr. Fuller attributes to this baptism, — "drenching and steeping," is not much like the effect at- tributed to it b}^ 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 barn 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. " Three 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 Jialloiv 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. 340 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 in pouring or walking; not because of the effect, wet or dry; but because of a development of "the power" changing the covdilion, 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 — rd dsojieva Xourpou) " 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 "/9a7rr:'C<« 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 /?a7rr£tp.a udari — and anointed herself with precious ointment." Now, what becomes, in the presence of this statement, of the dictum, that it is " entirely false " to expound the word as meaniing 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 V 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 {u8ari, 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 anj- 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 Holofernes 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 tlieir 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 /^aTrrt'Cw find water in a desert," but he cannot make TrsprAu^w 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 TzepuXuZfo, 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 q^the 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 with pure water, many with that of the sea, some with that of rivers, and some wuth BAPTISM BY SPRING WATER. 375 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 y 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 BADTIZQ, / 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. "VAKIOUS 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; "Which stood only in meats and drinks and diverse baptiz- ings; carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Movov Itzi ^pwjxafft xal Tzojiaffi, xai 8ta^6poiq ^anrcfffioii;, dixaKOfiara capxoq. 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 ihaX 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 sunti" Among these *' many, very many kinds of baptisms," he enumerates as "one kind, the healing of the leprosy of Naaman; another kind was the purging of the world by the deluge; a third kind, when our fathers were baptized in the Red 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. Ven. : "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. III, 1532: "I think that we should learn, in brief, the diversity between the baptism of Moses and that of John — TTjv diarj TzposxxexaOap/ii'/rj^. , . . "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 towai"d 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, Judaiosque ad vii-tutis stu- dium excitaret, prsecipiens ut juste quidem inter se, erga Deum autem pie agentes, ad lavacrum accedereut. Tunc enim demum acceptum Deo fore lavacrum aiebat, cum eo non ad expiationem criminum uterentur, sed ad corporis munditiem, ut mentibiis jam ante per justitiam expurgatis, corporis quoque addereut puritatem." BAPTISM OF JUDAISM AND OF JOHN MET TOGETHER. This quotatiou shows very clearly that Josephus, as well as the Patrists and the apostle, believed in " divers bap- tisms." This diversity, as between Judaic and Johaunic baptisms, is made both distinct and broad. The one bap- tism is a puritication of the body; the other is a purification of the soul. In the one case the agency effecting the puri- fication is water; in the other it is righteousness. "Righteous- ness" 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 eftecting the other purified con- dition, that of the body. Water, as ritually used by the Jew, 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 raersion is to take place. But in his view water no longer occupies the posi- tion of an efficient 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 difference in their nature, and the no less essential difference in the agencies by which they were effected. But Josephus could have no misconception as to Judaic baptism. And he tells us, that it consisted in a condition of physical ceremonial jpurity induced by the ritual agency of water, ashes, ^'C, used in sprinkling. Having, now, passed in review all the evidence witliiu 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 ruuner; 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 ? RESULTS. 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 atfirm that the Jew uses jSaTZTiZu} 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 fuudameutal meaning. 392 JUDAIC BAPTISM. (1.) There is no dipping in the Jewish use of the word. In all the instances cited from the writings of Josephus and Philo, in the translations of Symmachus 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 7io 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 aftected 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 i-ace 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 (etc rd udwp,") <■<■ iuto the lake (etV riyv kiljL'^Tjv"), " into milk {ekydXa ywauo:;"), " into the blood (sk rd alfia"). 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, namel}^ 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-tield, 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 with w^ater," into which a pitch- smeared pole may be mersed in order that it may be gilded. Nor can gold-water be substituted ibr 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. Nor 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 ^£? avaiadrjaiav xaX unvov 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 ven^oin insensibility and sleep; just as "gold-water" must remain ^o/c/-i^a^er,* 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 thiugs 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 fluids. (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 ^anrt^io e(V; phraseology used in physics to secure the development of any distinctive influ- ence belonging to its adjunct. Thus /SaTm'Cw el^ 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- tinctively 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 office, then, of the phrase ISanrc^u) ^t?, 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 with 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 baud is bapied, not by clipping, (the mode is rejected,) but by pressing a berry; the body and the mind are baptized, not by mersion, (tlie 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. ISTothing 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 — ^^incerto medicamine" — by which it was able to change the condition of those com- ing in contact with it, just as Bethesda's Avater 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 ftuid^ as such^ 396 JUDAIC BAPTISM. which effected the baptism, but a foreign " qualit}^'* im- parted to it, whose "power" to baptize was not restricted to any modal use. While the 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, ritually 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 jish-jpool. The evidence is overwhelming, in support of the posi- tion, that Jewish baptisms were effected by influential agencies, iisually, developing their power over ike object baptized by the act of sprinkling. The Theorists mode 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 iSanri^w " 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 Aristobuhis, drowned by the Galatians, there is no dipping. In the bap- tism of the human race in the dekige 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 sufi'ering, 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 difiiculty, 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 efifected) 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 concluding reply, 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 bj the sprinkling of lieifer ashes, as announced by Josephus? or by tlie 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 effected by the waving of a flaming sword, or by the ijour- ing of water upon an altar, or the baptism 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. Appropriation — Ceremonial Purification. 6. Finally, in connection with Jewish ritual purifications, ^a-Kzi'^w secures the meaning to imrify 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, /SaTrrt'Cw 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. 0?9 ticular case of stupefaction was produced, not b}- 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. No 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," (C. 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, /3a-TiCw secures the meaning to purify ceremonially/. No theorist can deny the fitness of the language, "Bap- 400 JUDAIC BAPTTPM. tized by heifer ashes, by siu-riii -ial Ijloc-xl, by living water, into ceremonial purit}'." Neither can he deny the lawful abbreviation, "baptized by heifer ashes," or that of the single word, "baptized;" which word shall embody, within itself, the one thought which is the joint product of the several parts of the sentence, to wit, made ceremonially pure. And when Josephus speaks of ^^ baptizing by heifer ashes," he speaks of making ceremonially pure by this agency. And when the Son of Sirach speaks of one '■'■baptized from the dead," he speaks of one made cercmonicdly pure. And when, two centuries afterward, the Jew wondered that the Sa- viour did not "first baptize before eating," he expressed liis wonder that he did not ceremonially purify himself. Such had become the direct meaning of the word, as shown Ijy its absoUite 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 avashing of the hands or feet, by the sprinkling of sacrificial blood or heifer ashes, by the pouring upon 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. AVith 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 wnth 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 our&, while no answer comes to the despairing cry — " Aos MOi nor sm." FOURTH EDITION. iJy James "W. Dale, Pastor of the Media Presbyterian Church, Delaware Co., Penn. «' EXHAUSTIVE "—" ORIGINAL"— " UNANSWEKABLE." "It RANKS WITH Edwards ON THE Will," .... Episcopalian. "Tt IS REALLY AN EXTRAORDINART BOOK, " .... W. Christian Advocate. "Logic OF Chillingwobth ; wit of Pascal," . . . N.Y. Evangelist. "It COMES IN LIKE Blucher AT Waterloo, ". . . . Congregational Review. "The ABLEST Treatise on the subject in the English Language," Central Presbyt^n •'It 18 A Marvel," Dr. H. A. B. "It is a master-piece," Dr. T.J. W. Congregational Review. "A work of great research, scholarly fidelity, and immense labor. Mr. Dale's treatment of Baptist jiuthorities is comprehensive, liberal, critical, and dissecting, occupying about one hundred pages. About sixty pages aro given to the import of /Jdirro). Thes« pages are a beautiful specimen of scholarly, contro- Tersial. 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 meaniog of ffavTi^fj). This book comes in as Blucher at \yaterloo, and the helium philologicum ought to cease." Presbyterian Banner. "To the minister and the man of letters it is a great armory from which weapons of defence maybe 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, Motitreal, Canada. " ' Classic Baptism ' dispels the illusion that the strength of the philological argument is on the side of our opponents. Wore perhaps than any other writer, Mr. Dale has settled the vexed question as to the meaning of /Jarrrijoj." 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/JaTrn'v^tj 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. i "It is thoroughly exhaustive, and exhibits a complete mastery of the subject. If the other Tolnmcs equal this in force and in learning, and we can scarcely doubt that they will, the author must, we think, bo ac- counted master of the position." The Episcopalian. " In the prosecution of the undertaking nothing is left unnoticed, nothing is left unsaid which it is de* eirable to view or to produce. The book maybe fairly ranked with Edwards on 'The Will.' Gaussen on 'Inspiration,' and Goode ou 'Orders.' Replies to all will be equally difficult, and in every case just as uh- 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 aa invaluable addition has thus been made to theological literature. It is really an extraordinary book." Western Presbyterian. "This is not simply a new book; it is a n»w work, and one of extraordinary ability and originality — originality in the whole conception and investigation. His masterly approaches have crumbled the Baptist strongliold in ruins. Proof is carried to the point of actual demonstration. The marked features of thia woik are thoroughness, candor, firmness, freedom from aspc^rity (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 tltis book." The Presbyter. " This is one of the most remarkable books which has ever appeared in opposition to those who hold that Bairri^u} 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 bn at variance with each other is admirible. It is in tracing the shifting of the terms used to transl.ite PaTrri^o} that the author makes perfect havoc of Baptist scholarship. His style of doing this is sometimes 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 we.arine88. We have seldom met with a more manly, keen, vigorous, and every way effHCtive specimen of dialectics. Humor exudes from his dialectic falchion as fragrance from the Damascus blade, by reason oJ the intensity of its tempering and polish. Certainly no writer ever impressed us more with his peculiar genius as a philologist, especially bis keen pnwurs of discrimination of the various shades of thought aa ex- pressed by symbol words." Judjmqnt of ^tltolarn IN MORE THAN TWENTY THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES, UNIVERSITIES, AND COLLEGES EPISCOPAL AND UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA. " Classic Baptism" embodies an immense amount of research and learning. The opinions of Professors Goodwin and Hare establish its merits. Rt. IIev. 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 the learning and argument which the importance of the question demands. Et. Rev. 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 0x7rTi^ai means absolutely and ahvays, ex vi tennini, "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 R. Goodwin, D.D., Provost of the University of Penn'a and Prof, of Theol. Divinity School. 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 his critical judg- ment asked upon an inquiry so elaborate as yours. ... I can fairly do no more than express my sincere admiTation of the exhaustive character of j'our examination of passages from the entire range of classical literature, and of the singular acute7iess 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 Cummings, D.D., LL.D., President, &c., VVesleyan 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 Pajrrco and PavTi'ioj 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. Newhall, D.D., Wesleyan University. I heartily indorse Dr. Newhall's estimate of " Clai^sic Baptism." 0. 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. The treatment of the subject is beautifully exhaustive. Conceding ail that you do for ih.Q 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 everj'wliere 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. ScHAEFFEB, 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. Schaeifer says he did. W. Jesse Knisely, 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 /JaTrH^o), 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. Berg, D.D., Professor of Theology, &c. CONGEEaATIONAL. If I were to utter my first impressions, T 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/JaTrW^w 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 I Let us have /aci 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. ] 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 congratuhitid on finding time and opportunity, while engaged in the jiractical duties oi' the min- istry, to produce a work like this, — evincing so much learned research, sd valuable to the Biblical student and so creditable to American scholarship. Leonard Woods, D.D., (Late) President of Buwdoin 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., Keading, Mass. PRESBYTERIAN (N. S.) I congratulate you on your able and convincing treatise on " Classic Baptism." It i> 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 /SanrtCo), or how j'ou 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. Tou have certainly shown that ^a-rti^ce does not, like /ga^T*, mean dip. KosWELL D. Hitchcock, D.D., Union Theological Seminary. In my humble judgment it is exhaustive, convincing, and irrefutable. I do not Bee 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 ritualism 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. 1 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 Immersionists to the support of the Classics. This has been long needed. You have done the work thoroughly. Your acute analysis bus brought out conclusions very nearly like my own, written years ago and never yet read by any one. W. EuFUs PowEKs, Lysander, N. Y. I (and my associates, Professors Ballantino, Smith, and Evans) have read your work with deep interest. I had supposed tlie classical word /iaTnS'o) leaned strongly toward the Baptist view of the subject, but I cannot see how your position can possi- be answered D. fl. Allen, D.D., Lane Theol. Sem., Ohio. PRESBYTEKIAN ^0. S.) I fully concur in the favorable judgment of your work on Baptism wliicli has been expressed by Dr. Green. Charles Hodge, D.D., Princeton Theological Seminary. Your 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 relies 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. Heney Gkeen, D.D., Princeton Theological Seminary. X examined very carefully your manuscript on Baptism. I was much interested in 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, us Scapula's Lexicon would enable any one to see, as Dr. Eice in his debate with the Rev. Alexander Campbell sufliciently 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 afl"orded me us 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 style, 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. SiUTH, D.D., Union Theological Seminary, Virginia. So far as relates to all the leading terms of the inquiry, you might with better rea- son even than Ammonius name your tractate, Ilrpi o^oi'coj' ica; ^la^tpoji' Xc^cojv; for I know nf 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. EoBERT 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 EncydopcpEUHJL BOOK," W. Christian Advocate ' His TWO TOLUMES REALLV MARK AN ERA IN THIS CONTROVERSY," American Presb. Review. Southern Presbyterian Review, South Carolina. This remarkable book has attracted much attention among American scholars. Its contents ar« unique. Tlie>' constitute a body of suggestive and most luminous IdtUs. easily pursued to the overwhelm- ing conclusion to which ihey point. It stands, as a controversial work, far above any we are acquainted with iu the whole range of Kni^lisb literature upon this subject. It is old ami 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 and Free Christian Commonwealth, Kentucky. If there is any wisdom in the maxim, "Fight the devil with fire," there is equal wisdom in Dr. Dale's practice of fyhting the Baptists Willi water. And never did steam fire-engine play its vigorous stream upon a mob if> its scattering more effectually than Dr. Dale with the vigorous stream of his water criticism, upon tho8e who have been so noisily assailing their brethren. Judiiic Baptism is every way worthy of the HUthor of Classic Bapti.^^m. It has the same excellent temper, the same lemarkable genius for philology, the same vigorous argument, the same remarkable scholar.-^hip and fine literary discrimination. Bii'.LiCAL Repertory and Princeton Review, New Jersey. . . . 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 bantering, but with clinching force, shows that "diti" will not answer in a single instance. Krom this primary, physical sense of ' intuspositiou," without limit.ation of manner or duration, the word passed in classic Gri-ek to a secondary use. that of describing a eonditioi 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 aruuments are not to be put aside bi/ vituperation. The criticisms on his former volume he takes occasion 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 paTrri^bJ controversy. American Presbyterian Review, New York. The previous work of Dr. Dale commanded very general attention, and fully sustained his positions as to the significance of /Jarrr^u. 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 his conclusions are not to he set aside by any criticisms that have yet been offered. He cites passages from the Jewi.sh 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 /?a:rn'Ctj cannot have the exclusive meaning -'dip." He estailislies his positimi, 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 cnveriny 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- natured 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 specim-en 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 him.self 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 the 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 bow 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 cpent bis life in a country village." Jewett and Dale, " whom nobody knows," use pretty heavy gunst " Judaic B'iptism is icortliy of the author of Classic Baptism. ' •'A TiiORCi'GHLY GOOD-NATUKED 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," Mfthudist Recorder. "Complete armory foe Scriftup.al Baptism," Presbyterian. Congregationalist and Boston Recorder, Mass. Dr Dale attaches great importunor to fhowing how thi- meanirig " to purify " could originate. It is of much greater importance to ^how that it did, in fact, originate. This fact Ur. Beecher and others had alreaily proved, and Dr. Dale 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 importauco of the decisions of this point cannot be overestimated. The extent of research, the patience in investigation, the closeness of comparison, and the candor and strength of judgmeut 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. lie simply lumps together a number of the aljusive 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 bapMsms spoken of by Jewish writers, inspired and uninspired. Tins volume will be more interesting to the mass of readers than Classic Baptism. Beyond all question, Dr. Dale is luruisbing 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 350 pages. It is no wonder that the University of Pennsylvania 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 work. 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 ago has been more highly commi-uded than Classic Baptism. .Judaic Baptism is des- tined to enjoy a reputation equally flattering No man has equallecl Dr. Dale in the thoroughness and ability with which he has discussed the mode of baptism. Every theologian should liave these two volumes. 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 PaKro) and pavrtlay. and dip as the invariable meaning oi /] airri^oi, are demonstrated to be impossible. Those who differ in sentiments &T6 fairly, kindly, and bravely met on their own chosen ground. The most learned in the land pronounce it a MABTERPieCE. The Evangelist, New York. He shows him.self a thorough master of his subject, and his discrimination of meanings and shades ot meaning is itself a study which, even as an intellectual lask, is inviting to the scholar. It is frequently amusing to see how completely he turns the tables on his opponents, and how summarily he routs them from their strongholds. Dr. Dale insists that the word niakesdemaud for acondition and not for a modal act, and wHIl this view every impartial and intelligent reader must accord. Western Presbyterian, Kentucky. Dr. Dale's method of investigation is the proper one. Opponents are bound to show that he fias mis- qtioted or misinterpreted the writers to whom he appeals. If they decline to do this, they confess themselves vanquished. If they m;ike the attemptand fail, their cause is lost. We wait to see what Baptist scholars will do. They have made a beginning. The Baptist Christian J'ress thinks the author to be an " ignoramus," an "upstart," and a •' lunatic." Prof. A. C Kendrick, D.D . nf the Baptist Theological Seminary, Rochester, N. T., thinks that he is "'a philological thimble rigger," and a good many other equally complimentary things. While the National Baptist thinks Dr. Dale is ''an author of no small ability," whose S'^holar-y work ''challenges our ndmiration." We think these volumes will compel the ImnieLsionists to abnudon their stronghold. There are signs of this already. Dr. Kendrick, in the Baptist Quarterly, tosses dip overboard, saving: "It Is not a dipjnn;/ that our Lord instituted. Baplizo never does engage to take its subjects out of the water." Now, some honest Baptist (dipper) will open his eyes at this, and ask. •' What, then, are we to do? " Kendrick says, you must get out of the water on your '• normal muscular action." (!) This is poinethinii for these who have thought that they knew what Baptizo meant — ", and nothing but dip, through all Greek literature" — to think about. We leave it with them. '^ Frank, sfrnljhtforioarl, neoer inte7itionally unfair.^' 1 HAVE BEEN FASCINATED WITH TOUR WORKS," Rt. ReV. A. C. CONB, D.D. * For the cause of truth a most valuable work." . . . . N. L. Rice, IJ D. "Your volumes mark an epoch in this controversy," . . . H. A. Boardman, D.D. "It should be in the library of every clergyman," . . . . Bishop Simpson, D.D. "MASSAsiPPi YOU HAVE found your match," Rev. .1. W. Moore. "Pages spiced with wit are agreeable, sometimes amusing," United Press. Review. "The water is taken from under them. They are stranded," Congregational Review. Rt. Rev. A. Cleveland Coxe, D.D., Bishop of Western New York. " I have been so fascinated with Chissic and Judaic Baptism, that I have read, in spite of myself, until I am forced to lay them down, and write at o4ce, 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 elfectually, that I trust it will be given up. I will commend your books to my Reverend brethren, and I am grateful that they will find such an armory in your pages." Bishop Simpson, D.D., Methodist Episcopal Church. "I have examined your work on Judaic Baptism, and have bi-en 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. Rice, D.D., President of Westminster College, Missouri. " You have done for the cause of truth a most valuable work — evidciuly 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 difler from j'our views in any important point." Henrt a. Boakdman, D.D., Philadelphia, Penn'a. " I am greatly impressed with the thoroughness and ability' of Judaic Baptism. The publication of your volumes marks an ept)ch in this protracted controvers}\ Y''ou have laid upon our Baptist brethren a task bey«>nd 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 shilling ; 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." Rev. 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 my 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 M.A'&^A.sippi, you have found your match at last.' Your book forcibly reminds me of this speech." Rev. 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. The}'^ 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 have given to the church and the world. 1 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 power. Dr. Dale has mostefi'ectively 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-poined, paiient, master of the situation." " The same clear discbimination and lucid expression," Prof. Moffat. "Your SERVICES IN THIS INQUIRY ARE OF THE HIGHEST VALUE," .... PkOF. SlIEDD. "I CONGRATULATE YOU ON THE SUCCESS OF YOUR LABORS," PROF. B. JI. SjIITU. "Learned, INSTRUCTIVE, EXHAUSTIVE, MASTERLY," Prof. jE\tETT. "Be AMPLY REWARDED FOR LABOR ON THE ARGUMENT," AlKERT BaENES. "Great research and wonderful originality," So. Presb. Review. "Great ability, originality, patience, fairness," Bibliotii.-Sacra. Professor James C. Moffat, Princeton Theological Seminary, New Jerset. ... I have carefully read the passage on pp. 224-239, and it seems to me that the secondary mean- ing of Pairri^u) is fully made out and forcibly presented. I find in all that I have read the sarne clear discrimination, and lucid expression, which gratified me so much in the former volume. Professor W. G. T. Shedd, Union Tlieological 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 becomcsmy admiration of them. It is impossible to turn your main 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. PoLiNa, 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, Galesburg, Illinois. ... I have read Classic and Judaic Baptism with great care 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 Czimberland Presbyterian Church). These are works of the most profound research, and in scholarship evince extraordinary ability. Dr. Dale, with rare acumen, perfect courtesy, and good-humored raillery, traces /^anri'^tj . . . 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 ana with triumphant success. . . . Southern Presbyterian 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 fjavroj and /[ianriicj 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 /Sarrri'i'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 successis complete. . . . Nothing can exceed the strength of the proof but the force of the conclusion. Bibliotheca Sacra, Andover, 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 Bervice to the cause in whose defence it was undertaken. . . . Octavo, pp. 400. Price, $3.50 ; Clergymen, $3.00. WM. EUTTER & CO., Publishers, Skvbnth and Cherry Streets, Philadelphia. mm]P mwj^- 30 COLLEGES, UNIVEKSITIES, THEOLOGICAL SEMINAKIES, SAY: "THE BAPTIST THEORY IS OVERTHROWN." "All the strongholds op the theort demolished," . . . Prof. B. M. Smith. "A MOST MASTERLY PHILOLOGICAL DISCUSSION," .... Prof. J. C. Moffat. "Appeal to usage must settle the controversy," . . . Prof. J. Packard. "Happy AND SUCCESSFUL VINDICATION OP THE TRUTH," . . Prof . J. T. Cooper. "Despair cannot, logically, continue the controversy," . Prof. W. J. Beecher. Pbisobtoh Theolooicai, Semihabt. — Prof. 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." Theological SEMiifAET, U. V.—Prof. J. T. Cooper, D.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. E. 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 li/ Tlfsifiart 'Ayuo as furnishing the leading parallelism with which to understand the c» vS^n. I heartily approve, too, of the disposition you make of l" Xp!aT(c, and of Christ's (and others) being cv Ufcvjiart 'Avi'to. 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. Plumer, 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 Theological Seminabt. — Prof, James Strong, D.D. " I heartily concur in the general conclusions of Johannic Baptism, and rejoice that the assump. tlons of the theory are so thoroughly refuted." Theological Semikaet (Lutheean), Gettysbueg.— Pro/. .S. S. Schmucher, D.D. " Johannic Baptism is a work of very superior scholarship, of much logical acumen, and of im- portant results. The anthor's investigations are singularly far-reaching, exhaustive, and satisfac- tory. The concrete form in which 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 a ad 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." "il great and good work for Scripture exegesis.'" "oonolttsive discussion off john's baptism," "Most masterly philological discussion," . " Triumphantly sustained throughout," "Main position incontestably established," "Wealth of originality without parallel," " ' The theory ' is exposed and demolished," Prof. H. B. Smith, D.D. Prof. J. C. Moffat, D.D. Prof. D. S. Talcott, D.D. Prof. H. O. Alexander, D.D. Prof. C. W. Schaeffeu, D.D. President \V. Lord, D.D. ''The standard AS TO THIS controversy," .... President J. Edwards, D.D. Peofessob B. M. Smith, Utiion Theul. Sem., Vieginia. I h.tve looked through the sheets of Johannic Baptism with increased admiration for the successful vindication of your principles and conclusions. You have demolished the strongholds of "the theory ;" and in your scholarly and discriminating view of John's Baptism you have left nothing to be desired, whether for sustaining your greit proposition as to the meaning of the word or the in- terpretation of the particles combined with its usage. I have been particularly gratified by your triumphant exhibition of the local force of the preposition Iv connected with (Janriioi, and your clear and forcible presentation of ei; following, and showing the relation to ficrdfoia, ui/ito-ij ajiapTuif, &c. You are doing a great and good work for Scripture exegesis, in illustrating the true metho