LIBRARY OF THE Theological Seminary, PRINCETON, N. J. BV 811 .D33 1871 Dale, James W. 1812-1881. Johannic baptism A DONATION FROM c a a- /^i. '^: .iff^ A '-■^.'. _^' ■r A W^ \^ ■^^ \ -' v.-^. ,^ "1; ij ■'•, Y ■'-» ■ i .,,- .j;^^ ^0 COLLEGES, UNIVERSITIES, THEOLOGICAL SEMINARIES, SAY: "THE BAPTIST THEORY IS OVERTHROWN." 'All the strongholds op the theory demolished," . 'a most masterly philological discussion,"' 'Appeal to usage must settle the controversy," . 'Happy and successful vindication op the truth," 'Despair cannot, logically, continue the controversy," Vrof. B. M. Smith. Prof. J. C. Moffat. Prof. J. Packard. Prof. J. T. Coojter. Prof. W. J. Beecker. Princeton Theological Seminaky.— Pro/. .7. 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. Fini.shed in the style of what is already done, your work will be one of the most masterly philological discussions in our language." Theological SEMiNARy, U. V.—rrof. J. T. Cooper, D.D. " 1 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 e?irf." Theological (Seminary, Columbia.— Pro/. J. R. Wikon, 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 V 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 cv nvtinan 'AyiM as furnishing the leading parallelism with which to understand the ev vSin. I heartily approve, too, of the disposition you make of t:' Xfi(ar-(o, and of Christ's (and others) being iv n^tti/ian Ayiw. This is capital. In short, you send to me for criticism, I reply by eulogy. The series taken together consUlute a chain." . . , From Frqf. Tl"»i. S. Plnmer, 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." Drew Theological Seminaky.— Pro/. James Strom, D.D. "I heartily concur in the general conclusions of Johannic Baptism, and rejoice that the assumi- tions of the theory are so thoroughly refuted." Theological Seminary (Lctheean), Gettysburg.— ProK S. S. Helimuckrr. D.D. " Johannic Baptism is a work of very superior scholarship, of much logical acumen, and of im- portant results. The anthor's investigations arc singularly far-reaching, exhaustive, and satisfac- tory. The concrete form in which he has presented much of the discussinn, cannot fail to give it additional interest to the popular reader, whilst the genial spirit wliicli pervailcs it, makes it pleas- ant to all. It is tn be hoped, in view of these investigations and results, that our Baptist brethren will soon cease to magnify. We cordially recommend this volume to all who feel an interest in radical and learned investigation." "Assumptions OF THE THEORY THORouGHLv RKFDTED," Prof. Jamrs Strous, D.D. "Interpretation of .Scripture eminently fair,". . Prof. J. R. Wilson, D D. "Cordial APPROVAL OF THE Christian Church," . . Prof. W. S. Phmier, D.D. "Fully proved youp point ninety-nine times," . . Prof. . "The theory is exposed and demolished," . . . Pres. Willis Lord, D.D. Theological Seminary, ErrscoPAL, Alexandria.— Pro/. J. Packard, D.D. " Johannic Baptism is characterized by the same exhaustive appeal to the usage of /?n7rris'J, and the prepositions connected with if, as your previous works. This appeal to usage must settle the controversy, if anything can. I shall commend all your works." Theological .Se.minarv, Hampden Stdset.— Pro/'. B. M. Smith, D.D. •' Your scholarly and discriminating view of John's Baptism leaves nothing to be desired, whether for sustaining your great proposition as to the true meaning of the word in its religious as well as tropical meaning, or the interpretation of the particles which are combined with its usage. I have been particularly gratified by your triumphant exhibition of the local force of Iv when connected with /-)'uTri>co, and your clear and forcible presentation of tlie power of f (',. You are doing a great and good work both for Scripture exegesis and for settling on irrefragable grounds the meaning of this long-discussed word." Western Theological Seminary.— P70/. S. J. Wihon, D.D. "I have examined the points to which you directed my attention, and it seems to me these points are made good. Your discussions open up to me a new world on that subject. To me your argument is intensely interesting and carries conviction with it. My appreciation of your work increases with every volume." Adbukn Theolooical .Seminary.— Prq('. W. -J. Bccdier. " You have invested this discussion with fresh interest and increased light. The view given of Mark 7 : 4 is tenable, and the translation of John 1 : 25 is vindicated. PaTrTia/xa has not, in my Judgment, any physical usage in the New Testament. And the usage of the phrase lii'nrnaita utriimiai proves that fizTixvnia is /ftft dijfej-enfid characterizing Jcjhp's baptism as distinguished from other baptisms. It is imperative that £is nftatv ajinimwi' be taken afe the verbal or ideal element de- manded by paTTTinnn. Your reasoning is comidetc as against the current Baptist syllogism, 'ffaKrilto requires an enveloping element : that element can be nothing else than water : therefore the water must be an enveloping element.' You have conclusively proved that something else not only may be, but is, the enveloping clement. That iJanTito so controls the. use of the water as to demand en- velopment within it, you have, indeed, exposed as pure error. In view of your discussion, either with or without the emendations which my present views would require, I unhesitatingly answer your final question, ' Can despair prolong the controversy?' Not logically.'''' WoosTER University.- Pirsident U'. Lord, D.D. " I cannot tell you with how deep an interest I have read th« third part of your great work on Baptism. In my view, the Theory, as you gently name it, is exposed and demolished, as it never has been before. If truth can end it, it will perish. The completion of your work, in the manner in which it has been so far done, ought to secure you the grtratude of the whole Church of Christ." , rrofe^. to know its meaning from usage, I have never met with it as used by a Jew in connection with any proselyte baptism. But I would take it as a very special fiivor if you would point out a few of such cases that I might examine them. " There are no such cases." Well, any time during John's ministry. " There are none. The subject is not mentioned by Philo or Josephus, or by the Targuras of Onkelos or Jonathan. But it is mentioned in the Jerusalem Talmud, written in the latter part of the third century, and by the Babylonian Talmud, written in the fifth century, and by Pseudo-Jonathan, who wrote in the seventh or eighth century, and by Maimonides, in the twelfth century. But we have no doubt at all, /rom our traditions, that proselyte baptism was practiced a thousand years before John was born." Have you been able to satisfy the learned world of the truth of such tradition? "Not exactly." Is there any agreement among learned men, outside of the traditionists, as to the existence of proselyte baptism in the time of John ? " I must confess that there is not." I hope, then, you will hold me excusable for not mentioning among Jewish bap- tisms, of written record, that proselyte baptism which, if it has a traditional life before John, has left behind no written monument to testify of its existence. Mj' business is to learn EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 27 the meaning of ^ainKu) from its use in the writings of those who understood the Greek language. I cannot cite as con- temporaneous writings the most venerable traditions which crop out centuries after, even though they claim to go back so far that " the memory of man runneth not to the contrary." However, as our friend of "the National" thinks that you can upset the foundations of things without even seeing them, by your knowledge of this word, and as I am quite willing for error to be upset, and myself with it, so far as I rest upon it, please give us your views of this much-debated ^amiX.u), " I do not know that I have much to say about /SaTTTtTw." Indeed! and why not? "I am a Jewish Rabbi. Jews don't write in Greek. The Talmud, Babylonian and Jerusalem, the Targums of Onkelos, Jonathan, Pseudo- Jonathan, and Joseph the Blind, as well as Mishna, are all written in another language." Well, this is not a little sur- prising. Our Baptist friend has brought you, the very learned Ilabbi Isidor Kalisch, forward to uj)set the founda- tion of a Greek word (established by the usage of Greek writers through more than a half thousand years) by means of a lever whose long arm is weighted by centuries of Tal- mudic traditions, and whose fulcral point is a Hebrew root ! Is not this novel ? But Jew or Greek, tradition or record, let us learn." What is this Hebrew word, and by what alchemy does it become transmuted into Greek? Will you. Rabbi, instruct us on these points ? " When we speak of baptizing proselytes we use, in Hebrew, the word 7i5£0. Some might say that we borrowed this word ('baptize'), in this application, from Christians or from John, while we would claim its use before Christianity or John, and from time im- memorial, and as a translation of the Hebrew word." A discussion of your right of proprietorship in this word since John's baptism might involve us in all the intricacies of the sub lite question. What is the origin of proselyte baptism ? therefore, passing this by, please inform us by what right, at or before John's time, you make 7DtO represent /SaTrrtTw. " The New Testament and the Apocrypha, both, show that 28 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. ^anri^u) was used to express Jewish purifications at and long before the time of John." This is certain. Now, make it as certain bj contemporaneous writing, tliat these purifyings, baptizirigs, were called iabalings, and in what sense such designation was used. " I do not know that I have the materials for doing the one or the other." Have you the materials for determining, in any way, the meaning during this period of this Hebrew word and its relation to the Greek word? "Yes; the Septuagint, a translation by Jews of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek, made before John and current in his day, furnishes such material. The word oc- curs in the Hebrew Bible some eighteen times. It is found once (1 Chron. 26 : 11) in composition as a proper name, signifying, as some (Gesenius) suppose, ' Whom Jehovah has imrljiedJ In Ezekiel 23 : 15 it is applied, in a derivative, to a head-dress, with the meaning cbjed. In Genesis 37 : 31 it is translated {iioXovw) to smear, to stain. In all other passages it is translated by fidTrrco, except in II Kings 5 : 14, where it is translated by ^ar.ri^u).'^ It appears, then, that out of eigh- teen cases of usage, it is untranslated once [Ta^Xai], in a proper name, having as supposed the significance, loashedy cleansed, purified; once translated f/j/cc? {TrapajSa-Td); once trans- lated stained, and in all other cases translated by jid-ru), with one exception, where fiar.ri'iuj appears; that is to say, it is translated by fidnTta fifteen times out of eighteen. Now, can you tell me in what sense the Hebrew word is used these fifteen times, and can you give any reason why there should be an exception to the otherwise uniform translation in the two instances you have mentioned ? " There is little or no question from any quarter as to the meaning of the Hebrew word and as to the meaning to be attached to its translation by the Septuagint in these fifteen passages. There is com- mon consent that the meaning of both words is to dip. The translation {ixuXuvw) in Genesis 37 : 31 may be accounted for by supposing that the Hebrew word, like the Greek, meant to dije, to stain, as well as to dip, or that the translators chose to express the effect of the dipping rather than the act itself. And it may be that the other exceptional case (H Kings • EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 29 5 : 14) should be explained in the same way. It is possible that the Hebrew word may have obtained, as some (Gesenius, De Wette, Stuart, and others) suppose, the secondary mean- ing, to wash, to cleanse, to purify. The Chaldee Targum uses the same word (720, to ivash, to cleanse — Godwin) to express the command, 'Go ivash' (rn^), and the execution of the command (^IJiO). It may also weigh with some, in assign- ing a meaning to the word in this passage, that it is not the performance of an act that is involved or commanded, but a purification by a miraculous healing. In view of all the facts, it is possible that the translators may have attributed a secondary meaning to the word in this passage, as iu Genesis 37 : 31, and expressed that meaning by (ianri^u); or if they supposed a definite act to have been performed (which was not in the command), they have preferred to express in their translation the effect secured and not the act done. Whether Joseph's coat was ' dipped' or not, the Septuagint was right in saying that it was stained; and whether J^aaman dipped himself or not, the Septuagint was right in saying that he was j^mijied from his leprosy." Then these Jewish translators represent the meaning of the He- brew word to be, 1. To dip, 2. To dye, 3. Possibly, to cleanse, which they express in Greek by iSdnrw; while there is no sufhcient evidence to show that in the single instance in which they use (ia-Kri^m that they designed to express the act of dipping. Are there any other translations of the Hebrew Scriptures into Greek that bear upon this question ? " Aquila translates the word in Job 9:31, '■baptize in corruption.' Symmachus translates the kindred word {'^2'0) in Psalm 69 : 3, *■ baptized in boundless depths.' An unknown writer also translates the same word, as Symmachus, by baptize. And the Septuagint, translating Isaiah 21 : 4, terror terrifies me, not verbally but ad sensum, substitutes ' iniquity baptizes.^ In none of these cases is there expressed^he specific act of dijjping which belongs to fidnzm." Two things then. Rabbi, appear to be very clear from your statements : 1. The Jew- ish translators of the Hebrew Scriptures understood 75tD to 30 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. express the specific act to dip, and therefore employed (idr^Tco (which iu Greek has the same specific meauiiig) as its traus- hition. 2. They refused to translate by [ianriZio^ because it did not mean to dip, but employed it where no definite act was to be expressed, but a state or condition. Will you now tell me wdiether any of the personal washings or purifica- tions enjoined upon the Jews by the divine law were ever expressed by 7DiO? "They were not." Will 3'ou tell me what is the word which you find in Jewish Greek writings to express ceremonial purifications for one or more centuries before John's time, and reaching to his time; was it ^dnzu} or fSartTi'^w? "It was fiar.ri^u), and never ^dnTw." Do you mean to say that that word, fidnTU), which the Jewish Bible translators use as the representative of ^3p (while they steadily refuse to represent it by [ianri'^u}), is never employed in ceremonial purifications, while [iar^Ti^w always is? " Such is the fiict." Then you confess that your tabal-baptizing is not derived from the written law of Moses, and is by the authority of Jewish translators of the Hebrew Scriptures declared to be an unlawful conjunction of terms, except as the Hebrew word may have laid aside its primary significa- tion of a specific act? " That would seem to be a fair con- clusion. But remember that Talmudic traditions are, with us, of supreme authority." I do not propose to meddle with your traditions. Hand them over to our friend of "the [National." And give him a friendly caution against "bap- tizing clothes ; " as also against forgetting that whatever may be the character of the Talmudic ^Dip, that word in tlie He- brew Old Testament is not quite the same as the [iarM'^ot of the Greek New Testament. And now, Rabbi, if "the Na- tional" does not wish your presence any farther, wo will, with thanks for your information, and admiration of the manner in which you "upset the foundations," respectfully bid adieu. What says the National Baptist? The National Baptist says, " The cross-examination of wit- nesses is a nuisance. Talmudic traditions are as good as gospel when for the theory. They are as worthless as old EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 31 wives' fables when against it. The Rabbi has no right to say that our baptism is worth nothing because we baptize * clothes.' He has no right to say that the children of prose- lytes should be baptized with their parents. He has no right to say that ^^D is not §aTZTiZ or The Changes of Thirty Years in the East, by Rev. Wm. Goodell). " Rev. E. Riggs thus describes a Greek baptism which he witnessed in Smyrna in April, 1851 : " The priest, taking the infant, perfectly naked" (aid and comfort to Rabbi Kalisch), " in his hands, and holding it over the font, said, ' The servant of the Lord, Iphigenia, is bap- tized (placing it in the water, which reached up to its neck, and thrice taking up water with his right hand, and pouring upon the child's head) in the name of the Father (then lifting the child up, and again placing it in the water, and repeating the affusion as before), and of the Son (same movement re- peated), and of the Holy Ghost, now and ever, even for ever and ever : Amen.' I have witnessed this ceremony a num- ber of times, and in no instance was the whole body of the person baptized, immersed in the water. In many instances the size of the font would not have admitted it. " Rev. Mr. Wood, for many years a missionary at Con- stantinople, and now one of the Secretaries of the A. B. C. F. M., adds his testimony, that the practice is the same in the Armenian Church, and he cites the testimony of Dr. Perkins, in an article contributed to ' Coleman's Ancient Christianity Exemplified' (p. 574), in wliich Dr. Perkins thus describes the way of baptism among the Nestorians : ' The children are set into a vessel of tepid water, which extends up to the neck, and held there by a deacon, while the priest takes up water with both hands (not the right hand only), and suffuses it over the head, repeating the name of one per- son of the Trinity each time.' " The Armenian clergy, it is added, base their practice of baptism by affusion on the fact, received among the traditions" (over against Rabbi Kalisch's traditions) "of their church, that the Saviour was thus baptized. In all 38 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. their pictures of the scene of the baptism, Christ is repre- sented as standing in the Jordan, and the Baptist as pour- ing water from his hand upon his head. Jews, who some- times enter the Armenian Church, are baptized in the same manner. " The Armenian Church (it is further stated) acknowledges the validity of baptism by sprinkling, and receives, Avithout rebaptizing them, Romanists and Protestants who seek ad- mission into its communion with no other baptism. The Greeks rebaptize, but the writers must be mistaken who represent the ground of this to be a view of immersion as essential to baptism. Regarding all other bodies of Chris- tians as in heresy and schism, they arrogate valid ordinances and salvation to their own church exclusively, and would no sooner receive one baptized by immersion, without rebap- tizing him, than they would one whose baptism was by sprinkling. Their own baptism, if it ever is, very exten- sivel}^ to say the least, is not an immersion." What, now, does Professor Arnold say of these baptisms of the Armenian, Nestorian, and Greek churches? Hear him : " There is no baptism without immersion ; but they are not punctilious about the totality of the immersion. Af- fusion comes in only to supply the defect and complete the immersion." Is not this a marvellous utterance from a friend of the theory? He does not dare reject these bap- tisms of the Eastern churches, and yet there is not in one of them a baptism according to the theory. But " the totality'' of the immersion" has suddenly become "a punctilio!" And " the defect" in the immersion is remedied, hear all ye friends of the theory, by " affusion ! ! " We are told that in the bottom of the Dead Sea there is a sudden break down from " thirteen feet to thirteen hundred feet." But this sudden fall of a thousaud feet is a trifle to this bathic break down of the theory in the hands of Professor Arnold. But it is a shame to strike a foe when fallen without the proffer of generous quarter; how much more, then, a kindly opponent like Professor Arnold. lie has fallen as heavily as one of his weight (and I am sure he is not one of the " light weights," EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 39 intellectually or morally) can fall. "We, therefore, extend to him our hand and assist him to rise, that he may do battle on another field of his selection. ALEXANDER DE STOURDZA. Alexander de Stourdza takes the place with Professor Arnold which Rabbi Isidor Kalisch took with the National Baptist. Whether the former will prove a more valuable ally than the latter remains to be seen. The challenge under which the Professor proposes to do battle is this: "The verb /3a;rTctw, immerc/0, has but one meaning. It signifies llieraVy and 2)erpetuaUi/, to plunge." This is the language of de Stourdza which, when the Professor adopts as his own, is accompanied with this plaintive lament, "It is a pity that this Greek scholar should be left without the light of Dr. Dale's volumes." Having no hope that the light from these volumes can reach to the Professor's height, I will seek to throw light upon this thesis from some other sources which he may hold in higher estimation. And, first, I presume the Professor will pay due respect to light proceeding from himself. Let me, then, ask of him, Do you. Professor Arnold, believe that "/Sa-rtT^ has but one meaning, and that that meaning is, literally and perpetually, to plunge? " To be more specific, Do you believe that when the sea-coast is baptized by the tide coming over it, that the sea-shore is "plunged" into the water? " Well, of course, I know that it is not; but de Stourdza says that it is, and who am I that I should oppose Stourdza?" Do you believe that when, in the overflowings of the Nile, its banks, and the plants in the Egyptian fields, and their land-animals are baptized, that banks, and plants, and animals are taken up and " plunged" into the water ? " Why, of course, I know that they are not; but de Stourdza says that they are, and what can I say, but say what Stourdza says?" Do you believe that the soldiers, who w^ere baptized by marching all day through the water to their waists, were "plunged" into the water by anybody or anything ? " Why ask such 40 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. a question ? I know as well as any one that they were not; but so long as cle Stourdza says that they were, what can I do?" Do you believe that the altar on Mount Carnicl, bap- tized by water poured upon it, was "plunged" into the water? " Why persist in asking such questions? Any one, though more stupid than Baal's worshippers, must know that it was not ; but Stourdza ! Stourdza ! " Do you believe that souls, at the gates of Paradise, baptized by the waving of a flaming sword in the hands of the Great Baptist, are "plunged?"' "I must positively decline listening to any more such questions. What will de Stourdza say?" I will ask no more questions. It is quite plain that there is light in you, but the deep de Stourdza shadow turns it into dark- ness. There may, however, be some of your friends pos- sessed of courage to express, as Avell as hold, an opinion which may not exactly square with that of the Russo-Greek Councillor. What does your friend Gale say? Dr. Gale, do you believe in " one meaning, literally and perpetually, to plunge f "I have tried as hard as any man to carry through ' one meaning,' but, as you know, I have my mis- givings ; we may have, at last, to fall back on something beyond act of any kind ; it may be that it is condition and not act which is expressed." And what is your opinion. Dr. Cox ? " I believe that any man made very wet by the drop- pings of the night dew falling on him is baptized thereby." Dr. Fuller, what is your ftiith on this point? " I give up plunge, and nothing but plunge. If water is poured over a man long enough, he will need no plunging to baptize him." Dr. Carson, what do you say ? " I have very little to say for ' plunge, literally and perpetually,' but I am ready to stake all on ' dip, and nothing but dip, through all Greek litera- ture.' " And what does " the Professor of the Baptist Theo- logical Seminary, Rochester, ISTew York," say ? " Brethren ! my advice is, get rid of senseless dipping." Will Dr. Conant give us light upon this issue ? "I have translated ^aTzzi^u) and its derivatives, in the Bible and out of the Bible, nearly five hundred times, and seventeen times (against opposing hundreds) I have translated it plunge. That is all the aid EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 41 and comfort which I can give to Stourdza-ism." Will the venerable Booth give us his judgment on this question? " Mj judgment is on record long ago. An opponent of mine once translated /Sajrrc'Cw, ' literally and perpetually, to ■plunge,^ and I said, in reply, that he did so ' to make our sentiments and practice ridiculous.' De Stourdza may mean very well by his literally and perpetually plunging, but this only leads me the more earnestly to cry, Save me from my friends!" So much for de Stourdza's " plunge." " It is a pity that this Greek scholar should be left without the light of Dr. Dale's volumes," or, in its absence, let me add, without the light of this voluminous testimony of Pro- fessor Arnold's friends. The simple truth is, that there is not a thoughtful and well-read man on earth who believes this doctrine of de Stourdza. And there is no risk in saying that neither Pro- fessor Arnold, nor de Stourdza himself, believes what their language affirms. I will not say (as the Baptist Quarterly says of Dr. Dale and his volumes) it is " ayi attempt to impose upon the unlearned and the half learned," for I have never learned that the correction of error required the maligning of character. I do not believe that these worthy men have made " an attempt to impose " error for truth upon any one. Their best defence must be in the apologetic abandonment of their position, saying, " We did not really mean what, in words, we said." This plea has already been entered for Dr. Carson and his disproved " dip, and nothing but dip." It must be re-entered for the patently erroneous " plunge, and nothing but plunge" of Arnold and de Stourdza, Neither Jewish Rabbi nor Greek Councillor can save the theory. " SEE ALL THE LEXICONS." " See all the lexicons," says Professor Arnold, to prove that ^a-zi'^m means to plunge, a strictly definite act. And another writer in this Baptist Quarterly says, " Mr. Dale does not assail us with Stephens and Scapula." And a third writer, speaking of lexicons, says, " It is not creditable to 42 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. our religious journalism that sucli works as Mr. Dale's Classic Baptism should find counteuauce or favor in any quarter." My desire in examining into the meaning of this Greek word has been to place the inquiry on an ultimate basis, and to collect material for a final and irreversible judgment. My judgment has not been presented as final or irreversible for any one, not even for myself. Disprove my evidence and 3'ou change my judgment. The materials on which that judgment is based are uncovered for the inspection and the independent judgment of every one as well as for myself. If in my judgment I have, as charged, played the fool and shamed idiocy, then, even " the unlearned and the half learned" will not be likely to be liarmed by my "attempt to impose upon them." But if the judgment reached is so clearly indicated that even " a mere country pastor" may be considered as competent to see it, and if that judgment be sustained by the independent judgment of all outside of the theory, then that judgment will be final and irreversible, and the friends of the theory will, sooner or later, confess it to be so. Heretofore in this inquiry reliance has been placed on usage, and nothing has been said about lexicons, because it is a matter of universal admission that manifold imperfec- tions attend upon general lexicography, and its conclusions are without authority except as they may give a true inter- pretation of usage. But inasmuch as appeal is now made from usage to lexicography, and the theory claims that every lexicon is a pillar of support to its doctrine, it may be well to turn aside for a while and inquire into the facts of the case. But before we " see all the lexicons," let us clearly under- stand what it is that we are expected to see in them. Let there be no confounding of this with that. If it is one thing and but one thing, then let it not be diverse things and noth- iuiX but diverse thino;s. The theory boasts of its one mean- ing and of its denial of any second meaning. If this were not, as Professor Stuart declares it to be, "an adventurous position," but one founded in fact, then it would be the EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 43 simplest thing in the world for the theory to announce that one meaning, plant itself squarely upon it, and indicate its truth by pointing out fact after fact. This has never been done. This has never, really, been attempted to be done. "When Carson gives the one meaning in the sharpest possible delinition, there is not enough of attempt to carry the defini- tion into the facts of usage to dignify it by entitling it a failure. And when Arnold-Stourdza gives the one meaning in another character, and by a definition matching well that of Carson in sharpness, Booth replies, that its application to the facts of usage " makes our sentiments and practice ridiculous." This utter failure through two centuries to present the one meaning in a tangible shape and to verify it by laying it alongside of the universal facts of usage, is, itself, proof that the claim cannot be true, and that the claim for lexical support must be equally untrue. But while there has been no general attempt to give embodiment to the meaning in one word, and when the attempt has been made it has awakened dissent and resulted in failure, still there has been an almost universal assent to the position, that (iaiiri'^u) makes demand for an act, to be done, in contradis- tinction from a result or a condition consequent upon the doing of an act; and farther, that this act demanded to be done is properly described as specific in its nature, definite in its character, and modal in its form. This word is said to maintain its meaning unchanged in ideal as well as in physical relations. And any secondary meaning is peremp- torily denied. What we are called upon, then, to " see in all the lexicons" is, 1. A definite act ; 2. A where a secondary mean- ing should have been. This statement is, perhaps, sufficiently substantiated by what has been said in the general treatment of the subject, but inasmuch as special appeal has been made to the lexi- cons, and this meaning of the theory (act in opposition to condition), is the alpha and the omega determinative of the whole subject, it will be desirable to have distinctly before us authoritative evidence of the teaching of the theory on 44 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. this point. For this purpose the following quotations are made from representative writers. Dr. Gale, London, 1711, j^. 93. " We cannot believe that it is so doubtful, in Scripture, as many pretend, whether dipping only be baptism. I'll begin with the words /5a;rTw and ^aizri^u), for they are synonymous." This is doubly plain. Gale not only says that the definite act " dipping" is, and " only" is, baptism, but he says that iSanrif^m is syuouymous with the definite act verb ^dnzoj. lie, then, beyond all question, regarded iSanri^uj as a verb de- manding the performance of a definite act. Booth, London, 1792, p. 265. " The verb baptize, in this dispute, denotes an action required by the divine law. And the simple question is, What is ihiit action? Is it immersion, or pouring, or sprinkling? Not what is the principal end or design of that action f Be the action itself, and the design of it, whatever they may, they certainly are different things, and must be so considered." Booth could not state the point more sharply : " Baptize denotes an action required by the divine law." The error in using "immersion," as "pouring and sprinkling," to ex- press the act of the verb should be noted as of constant oc- currence in this class of writers. Pouring expresses the act in the verb "to pour;" and sjmidding expresses the doing of the act in the verb "to sprinkle;" but "immersion" does not express the doing of the act in the verb to immerse. "Immersion" is the result of the act of immersing. P. 279. " That many tyrants and fools have given laws to secular kingdoms, and have even presumed to legislate for Jesus Christ himself, is a fact ; that some of their laws have been marked with tyrannic subtilty, and others with egre- gious folly, is also a fact; but that any of them were ever so crafty as to contrive a law which by a single specific enacting term equally required three different acts of obedience, and yet were so complaisant as to feel themselves perfectly satisfied with having any one of those acts performed, I do not be- lieve." P. 280. " Ba-KTi'^u) is a specific term. The English expression dip is a specific term." P. 286. EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 45 We may question the propriety of making " tyrant and fool" the alternative title of the Divine lawgiver under any possible contingency; but he must be more than "atj'rant," and less than " a fool," who would doubt that Booth means to say, that /JarTj'Cw expresses a specific act. Cox, London, 1824, jp. 46. " The idea of dipping is in every instance conveyed; and no less so by all the current uses of the terms [(idTzrio and ftanrc^^w) in question. A person may in- deed be immersed by pouring, but immersion is the being plunged into water or (the being) overwhelmed by it. Were the water to ascend from the earth, it would still be bap- tism, were the person wholly covered by it." Nothing could be more explicit or more harmonious with the theory than the first sentence; nothing could exhibit "confusion worse confounded" beyond the remainder of the quotation. Observe the confusion in the use of " im- mersed" and "immersion." In the case of the first the usage is proper; "immersed" expresses a condition, the re- sult of the act of pouring; but "immersion," instead of being used as the condition resultant from the act in " being plunged," " being overwhelmed," is exhibited as only an- other form of those acts. Observe, again, the absurdity of representing /Sa-rt^w as "io dip in every instance," and then representing as fulfilled in its demand by the diverse specific acts of plunging, pouring, and risi7ig up! Was it such a case that Booth had in view when he said, that " to use a single specific terin equall}^ re- quiring three different acts of obedience, was beyond the craft of the most consummate tyrants and fools ? " Observe, further, that Cox, while afiirming a specific act (dipping) " in every instance," abandons all act as expressed by the word and substitutes for it condition. The act of plunging is of no moment, it may be there or it may not be there ; the act of pouring is of no moment, it, too, may be there or may not be there; the act of rising up of gushing waters, is of no moment, it, likewise, may be there or may not be there ; but that which is of moment, and cannot be wanting, is the covered condition! Now, can fatuity go be- 46 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. yond the affirmation, that ^anri^u) makes demand for the per- formance of a specific act, and yet is squarely met by a con- dition^ the result of an}' one of a score of diverse acts, or by the conjoint operation of any half dozen of them ? But it is precisely this absurdity, more or less baldly presented, which meets us everywhere in the writings of the upholders of the theory. 31orell, Edinburgh, 1848, p. 107. " That the word /SaTrntw uniforral}' signifies to dip, I will not venture to assert or un- dertake to prove. I believe that the word does mean to dip, and this is its most usual meaning. But it appears quite evi- dent, that the word also bears the sense of covering hj super- fusion. This is admitted by Dr. Cox. Thus far we surren- der the question of immersion in company with Dr. Cox." Morell is evidently a cultivated as well as an ingenuous man. How it escaped him that the same word could not possibly express the diverse specific acts of dipping and super- fusing, I cannot understand. The error, however, which resorts to attributing to one word two diverse specific acts, rather than abandon the theory of a specific act altogether, shows how ingrained in the minds of the Old World and the New is the conception of [iar.ri'^o) as expressing a definite act. Stovel, London, 1846, p. 470. " On the act of Christian bap- tism. The student of the Holy Scriptures may determine for himself the nature of the act which Christ the Lord hath enjoined under the 7iame of baptis7n." P. 486. "It is impossible to dip by pouring, or to pour by sprinkling; and since there is but one baptism, it must be one or the other of these acts; it cannot be either or all. Baizzi'^u} is the same with ^^d-rw, only with a causal force." The statement that verb and substantive alike express definite act could not be more absolute. Ingham, London, 1865, p. 47. " That ^a-riZio is synonymous with the primary meaning of /3a7rrw appears to the writer to have the most abundant confirmation from the instances where it occurs, admitting that fidrau) may more exclusively retain the idea of putting anything i)do another, whilst [iar.Ti'^io mcaus to immcrsc, not only when the object is put EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 47 into the element, but, as in occasional instances on record, when the element is brought upon and around the object. The primary meaning of /3a-rw is to dip." Here, again, we meet the affirmation of a specific act and the absurd admission of a second meaning the direct con- trary of the first. We, also, see the same wretched use of " immerse" to hide the nakedness of a specific act. President Wayland, Principles and Practice of Baptists, p. 89. " We immerse the whole body in water." P. 91. " Few things are more impressive than the act of Christian baptism. The act may be an offence to the world, but it is glorious in the sight of God, of angels in heaven, and of saints on earth," Dr. Wayland appears to use "immerse" as expressive of "the act" in baptizing which, among Baptists, is by dipping the upper part of the bod}-. In so doing he adds his honored name to the long list of those who maintain that God has enjoined a si^ecific act to be done in baptizing. Professor Curtis, On Communion, p. 71. " Those who rightly receive baptism are assured by aforinal act that they actually ai^e ' heirs of God, joint heirs with Christ.' Baptism is the act of consecration. What sight on earth so beautiful as to see the young and lovely descending into the waters of baptism." Professor Curtis, not writing formally on the subject of baptism, is not so explicit as to "the act" as others. His language, however, " a formal act," " the act," " descending into," must be accredited to the theoretical specific act. Professor Jewett, Baptism, p. 13. " Bd-KTio has two meanings, to dip, to dye; (^aitriZio, in the whole history of the Greek language, has but one meaning. It signifies to dip (or im- merse), and never has any other meaning. Either /Sa-rw or ^oKri'^u) may signify to dip generally." Professor Jewett stands straight up for "specific act," " one meaning through all Greek literature," as, also, for the perversion of "immerse" in being made to perform the role of dip in executing a specific act. Professor Dagg, Church Order, p. 33. "If/3a;rrw signifies to immerse, ^anriZu) signifies to cause to be immersed. This makes 48 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. the words nearly or quite synonymous. BaTCTw more fre- quently denotes slight or temporary immersion than /3arr/Cw. Hence dip, which properly denotes slight or temporary im- mersion, is more frequently its appropriate rendering. In nearly half the examples in which ySaTrntw occurs, in the literal sense, it signifies the immersion which attends drowning or the sinking of ships." P. 35. " The propriety and force of the metaphorical allusions cannot be understood if the word does not signify to immerse." Professor Dagg, in these statements, mingles truth and error, with truth more predominant than in the case of any writer yet noticed. It is an error to translate jSdTtruj to im- merse. This is evident from the declaration that this word " denotes slight or temporary immersion;" but " immerse" does never ^^ denote slight or temporary immersion ;" it, there- fore, cannot be the translation of /JaTrrw. But why does Dr. Dagg translate, here, " immerse," when he says, it means dip, and when, in a formal statement of the passages in which ^dTTTiu occurs, he translates it "to dip" in every in- stance ? The reason is the same as that which leads all Baptist writers to murder "immerse" in order to save the life of " dip." Dr. Dagg wished to introduce into ^anTi'^u) a meaning to meet the facts of usage, which the theory had no power to give him. He wanted to get into jSanrtZu} a widely diiierent meaning from that of /Jarrw, while the theory saj'S, they are " nearly or quite synon^-mous," He, in obedience to theory, makes the former differ from the latter only as causa- tive. If, now, (Sd-TO) is allowed to retain the meaning " to dip," then ^ar.ziZuj must be made to mean " to cause to dip;" but the trouble is, that this meaning ivill not meet the facts of usage. Instead, now, of accepting the obvious truth, that [iar.Ti'^u} differs essentially in nature from /SaTrrw, the Professor robs this word of its dip, and substitutes for it immerse. And, thus, having overlaid dip by immerse, he is enabled, by causation, to extract it for the benefit of /Sarnt"*. There is no end to the tvvistings and turnings which grow out of es- sential error substituted for central truth. Professor Dagg uses " immersion " properly when he dis- EXAMINATIONS OP CRITICISMS. 49 tinguishes it from the ads of drowning and sinking, making it a condition resultant from those acts. He is, also, right in bringing into bold relief the ^'slight and temj)orary'^ immer- sion (dipping) of ^dnrco, which necessitates withdrawal, and the unlimited depth, duration, and action of the immersion of §aTZTiZui, which excludes withdrawal, as of the meaning of this word. It is only remarkable that Dr. Dagg should have failed to perceive that a word of such characteristics must express condition and not a specific act. Professor Dagg is emphatically right when he says, " the propriety and force of the metaphorical allusions cannot be understood if the word does not signify immerse,^' always provided, that the abuse of " immerse" to the sense of dip is here abandoned. If "immerse" in this statement be used as when it is said, '^ jSdnrut to immerse (dip), fiar,ri%u) to cause to immerse {to cause to dip"), then every particle of truth has evaporated out of it. The breadth of a sunbeam may as well be taken to swathe a continent as the feebleness of "dip" be used to interpret the power of influence which everywhere pervades the secondary use of /Sa-rtT*^'. And, herein, we find one of tlie clearest and most beautiful of the many evidences prov- ing that the theory is wrong to the very heart. That which it declares (dip) to be the exclusive meaning of the word through all Greek literature has not the shadow of fitness, Dr. Dagg being judge, to meet one-half of the cases of the usage of the word. Dr. Fuller, Baptism, j^. 13. " The act of baptism. And just so ftdTtru) to dip, (iaTtri'^io to make one dip, that is, to im- merse." P. 25. ^^ BaTTTc'^aj signifies to immerse, and has no other meaning." P. 29. " The fourth case is produced to show that fiaizziZu) does not always denote the act of plunging. My position is that ^aTZTi^io means to immerse. It matters not how the immersion is efiected." (P. 31.) " Suppose a man should lie in the baptistery while it is filling. The pouring of the water would not be the immersion, but an immersion would take place if he remained long enough. In the case of Elijah, the twelve barrels of water were first poured, and the trenches all around filled, and it is the effect of 4 60 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. this, it is the heing thus drenched, surrounded, and steeped, which Origen figuratively calls a baptism." Dr. Fuller here, again, treats us to the ever recurring masquerade of dip and immerse. " Just so fidr^ru) to dip ; ^aizriZu) to make one dip, that is io immerse" (/) " Ba-ri'^u) sig- nifies to immerse, to make one dip, and has no other mean- ing." Dr. Fuller has written a book of several hundred pages, and has used the word immerse scores of times ; if he has used it in a solitary instance in the meaning " to make one dip" (and it "has no other meaning"), I have not met with the case. How the specific act dip (slight and tempo- rary) is to be converted b}^ figure into " the effect" of pour- ing — " drenching, surrounding, steeping" — I leave the ima- ginator to settle with his friend Dr. Dagg. The pinching necessity of this case which constrained Dr. Fuller to accept of" effect" as expository of /SaTrrcTw, in con- tradiction of the theory, and in disregard of the expostula- tions of Carson, should have revealed the true character of this word as making demand not for the doing of an act, whether to dip, to plunge, to sink, to pour, or what not, but for an end to be secured, an effect, a condition, the result of any competent act or acts. Dr. Conant, BAPTIZEIN, j^P- 59-67, 103-107. Dr. Co- nant, in common with those whose views have already been presented, says, that the word is severely limited to one meaning, (iii.) "The translation expresses its true and onlj^ import." " From the earliest age of Greek literature down to its close (a period of about two thousand years), not an example has been found in which the word has any other meaning." " Showing its unvarying signification through all this time." " This unvarying sense of the word." " The constant usage of Greek writers, and the only recognized meaning of the word." " The word BAPTIZEIN, during the whole existence of the Greek as a spoken language, had a perfectly defined and unvarying import." The character of a word, used for two thousand years in one unvarying meaning, ought not to be doubtful. Dr. Co- EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 61 iiant expresses no doubt upon the subject. He, again, agrees with his friends in classifying it with those verbs which definitely express an act to be done, and not a definite result to be effected by an unexpressed act. These are his statements : " This act is always expressed in the literal application of the word, and is the basis of its metaphorical uses." " The literal act of immersion as the means of cleansing." " The word is used of the most familiar acts." " With the prepo- sition into expressing fully the act of passing from one element into another." " The act it expresses took place." " A Greek could be at no loss to know ivhai was done, or what was required to be done." " The other acts with which it is compared." " The Greek word expresses nothing more than tlie actof immersion." " This act is performed on the assenting believer." " The act expressed by the same word." " The act designated by the word in all these cases is the same." " The act associates with itself obligations." " The act which it described retained its primary meaning." " The act which it describes was chosen for its adaptation." " The same closely marked corporeal act as is expressed by the Greek word." When Dr. Conant says, that lianu^u} " always expresses this act" ^'■expresses the «d that took place," ^^ expresses nothing more than the act" ^'■designates the act" '■'■describes the act" there is nothing more certain than that he is in error. The Greek word is devoid of all power to inform us as to the form or character of "the act" by which any baptism is effected. It cannot inform us whether a baptism is effected by one act or by two acts. If Thales, the wisest of " the Seven," were alive again, he could not answer the question, " "What is the act which [ia-KTi%io expresses ? " How much less could " any Greek know what was done or what was required to be done." If the offer were made to Dr. Conant to pay for the next edition of his BAPTIZEIi^ in case he should answer this question, the question must remain unanswered. There is no such thing as '■Hhe act" expressed by /Sarrrt'Cw in contradistinction from an untold number of other and diverse acts by which the demand of the word may be as well and 62 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. as truly met. That this is true will be seen by farther state- ments made by Dr. Conant. If this word expresses an act done daily through two thousand years, then, since nothing is so sharply limited, so unvarying, so universal, and so easily to be expressed, there ought to be a fo,c simile for every such act in Greece in every land under the sun, and its enunciation ought to be met with in every spoken tongue. Has Dr. Conant furnished us with the counterpart of this act and its expression in the English language ? This is the answer: "BAPTIZEIN means, to immerse, immerge, sub- merge, to dip, to plunge, to imbathe, to whelm." And is this to be received as verifying the declaration that ^arMX^u) " designates," " describes," " expresses the act" of baptism? There are but two words out of the seven which express a definite act (dip and plunge), and these two acts are essen- tially diverse in their character, so that if /Sajrrt'Cw expresses either, it cannot ' express the other. And, beside, we have seen Dr. Conant's friends repudiating both ; the venerable Booth declaring that "plunge makes our practice and senti- ments ridiculous;" and "the Professor of the Baptist Theo- logical Seminary, Rochester, New York," exclaiming, "Bap- tist brethren ! Christian baptism is no mere literal and sense- less dipping.'^ Just in so far as these seven defining terms fail to express " one unvarying act," they fail to express " tJds act," the act which, we are told, ^anziZu) '-'■always desig- nates, describes, and expresses." But Dr. Conant acknowledges that these seven words do not express any one, common, form of act. By an analysis he groups their differences into two classes : 1. Such as move the object, ^'■putting into" the element; 2. Such as move the element, "putting under" the element. These two classes cannot be reduced any farther, retaining act as the distin- guishing basis of the classification. They may, however, be reduced to one class by the abandonment of the act, in which they differ, and the acceptance of the result, in which they agree. Whether the object be moved so as to pmt into the element, or whether the element be moved so as to put under the object, "put into" and "put under" meet together in EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 53 put within. The differences in act are merged in a common result, and this result becomes the characteristic expression of the verb. It is this (result) and not "this" (act) which ^ar^riZu) " designates," " describes," and "expresses." It is obvious that this jmt vnthin [intus-iDono) brings us face to face with the " intus position" declared by Classic Bap- tism to be the characteristic demand of the word. Additional proof of the correctness of this conclusion is found in the word, selected from these seven, as the repre- sentative word. That word is immerse. " The word immerse, as well as its synonyms immerge, submerge, dip, plunge, imbathe, whelm, expresses the full import of the Greek word BAPTI- ZEIN"." " The rendering given to this word, in this revision {immerse), is its true and only meaning, as proved by the unani- mous testimony of Greek writers, both Pagan and Christian." " The word immerse has been selected for use in this Revision as most nearly resembling the original word in the extent of its application." If " immerse" be the '■Hrue and only meaning" of /JaTrrttw, then the other six words have no right to appear as its trans- lation, for they differ both from " immerse" and from each other. As they, thus, have no right to appear, so there can be no possible necessity, when there is a word which ex- presses " the true and only meaning." But, again, if " im- merse" only comes "most nearly" to the meaning of the Greek word, it is quite unwarranted to say that " it is proved to be its true and only meaning." If the exposition by Dr. Conant of the word in question, namely, " it expresses the act," be correct, then he was shut up to the choice, out of the seven, either of dip or plunge, for these are the only terms which express the definite, executive act. Therefore it was that Stourdza makes "plunge" the literal and perpetual act. And, therefore, Carson makes " dip " the only act expressed through all Greek literature. Dr. Conant should, in obedi- ence to the theory, have followed their example and chosen the one or the other. But he does not do this. He selects another word — " immerse." And each, alike, claims that his word " expresses the true and only meaning through two 54 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. thousand years !" Now is there a living man who will say that these words are equivalent terms, so that it is a matter of indifference in assigning a radical, critical definition to a word from which usage through twenty centuries is to be evolved, whether such definition be expressed by dip, or by PLUNGE, or by immerse ? If no such person can be found, then dipping, or plunging, or immersing, or all three, must be rejected. But "Baptist brethren" have already been warned against dip and plunge as "senseless" and "ridicu- lous ;" there remains, therefore, for us only to consider " im- merse." The word immerse does not express movement out of one thing into another thing, but only the iviihin result reached. Therefore the demand of the word is full}^ met though the baptized object remain as fixed as the shore of the sea or as the fields of Egypt. If the mountain will not come to Mohammed, Mohammed must go to the mountain. Objection has been already entered against using a word (im-merse) derived from the compound im-mergo to express, critically, [ianri'^u). The Latin devolves upon one preposition the double duty of expressing motion into a place, and rest in a place. On this ground, apparently, and in contradiction of English usage, occasion has been taken to use im-merse as directly expressing movement into; and not only so, but, also, to use it, ais convenience required, in its legitimate meaning as expressive, simply, of withinness of position. This double usage vitiates all the writings of the friends of the theory. Dr. Conant says, it means "passing into," and in proof appeals to the construction with d<;. But the proof is not, hereb}', furnished. The preposition does indeed prove that there is a "passing into," but it does not prove that such passing into is expressed b}' ^ar.ri'^u). " The ship was im- mersed into the lowest depths of the sea." The preposition, here, proves that there is a ^)«55f??^ into the depths from the surface; but it does not prove that such "passing into" is expressed by " immersed," any more than in, " the ball was buried into the palmetto wood," the preposition proves that the passing into is expressed by " buried." There is such a thing as the act of dipping, the act of EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 55 plunging, the act of sinking, the act of falling, the act of walking, as distinctive severall}^ from all other acts, but there is no such thing as the act of immersion as distinctive from all other acts. There is no such thing as the act of dye- ing, soaking, steeping, imbuing, immersing, as distinctive, severally, from all other acts. These terms express results equally reached by diversity of acts and processes. But Dr. Conaut does not confine himself to the use of this word as expressive of movement; he employs it, also, as ex- pressive of rest. Thus he says, " The ground-idea expressed by this word is io jmi into or put ujider ivaier, so as entirely to immerse or submerge." Here it is impossible for " immerse," "submerge," to express movement; they can only express the result of the movement put into, put under, namely, a covered condition. It is the capability of " im-merse" for this unlawful double use (without the same naked exposure of the wrong), which qualifies it to take the place o^ dip and plunge, without its friends feeling constrained to say that it makes their theory "senseless" and '* ridiculous." That the true character of immerse has been given is made certain by what Dr. Conant says of the " ground-idea" of the word. " The ground-idea expressed by this word is to put into or under" (the act), "so as entirely to immerse or submerge" (the covered condition). " This ground-idea is expressed by the terms (synonymous in this ground element) to immerse, im- merge, submerge, io dip, to plunge, to imbathe, to whelm." " The object immersed or suh-merged" (covered condition) "is represented as being plunged, or as sinking" (the act) " into the ingulfing" (covering) "fluid; or the immersing" (cover- ing) "element overflows" (the act), "and thus ingulfs" (covers) " the object." " A sense founded on the idea of total submergence." " Whenever the idea of total submerg- ence" (covering) "was to be expressed, this was the first word which presented itself." "All agreeing in the essential idea oi submergence" (covering). "By constant usage ex- pressed entire submersion" (covering). In all these state- ments act is most expressly excluded from the characteristic 66 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. of the word and condition is substituted. And it is this " con- dition," and not " act," which is made the basis of meta- phorical use. " The ground-idea is preserved in the several metaphorical uses of the word." " The idea of a total sub- mergence" (covering) " lies at the basis of these metaphorical uses." *' A sense founded on the idea of total submergence'^ (covering), " as in floods of sorrow." " During the whole existence of the Greek as a spoken language, it meant to imt into or under'' (act), " so that the object was wholly covered by the inclosing element" (resultant condition). " By analogy, it expressed the coming into a iieio state of life or experience'' (change of mental or moral condition), " in which one was as it were inclosed or swallowed up, so that temporarily or wholly he belonged unto it." This metaphorical or secondary use of ,?an-T:tw can by no possibility be traced to any act by which the resultant con- dition is induced, but is traceable solely to condition, with- out any regard to the inducing act. That is to say, it springs out of the ground-idea of the word, which is a resultant con- dition, and therefore the word cannot express " act," and must express " condition." Words which express act have their secondary use founded in the characteristics of such act. Thus, " I plunged into dissipation," is. grounded in the literal characteristics of plunge — rapidity and violence. " I dipped into the dissipation of the city," is grounded on the literal characteristics of "dip" — limitation in force and entrance. " Tempted, Ifcll into dissipation," is grounded on the literal characteristics of " fall" — suddenness. " I glided into dissi- pation," is grounded on the literal characteristics of " glide" — irentle, insensible movement. " I became immersed in dis- sipation," is grounded in no literal characteristics of plunge^ or dip, or fall, or glide, or of any other act expressed in lan- guage. In the phrases, " soaked with rum," " steep>ed with love," ''imbued with truth," " infected with vice," there is no grounding in act, for there is no characterizing act in " soak," " steep," " imbue," " infect." These words represent, liter- al! v, resultant condition of unexpressed act, and in their secondary use they express the characteristics of condition EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 57 and not of action. Now, if we could say, " immersed with rum, loith love, with truth, with vice" (wliicli we cannot under the sanction of usage), we would express not the char- acteristics of an act, but a condition characterized by the in- fluence of " rum," " love," " truth," " vice." Now, this failure in "immerse" to enter into such usage makes it utterly break down as to its capacity to represent fta-KriZu). For such usage is emphatically the usage of the Greek word. Its characteristic duty is to give the fullest development to the distinguishing quality of its adjunct. For this duty the literal ground-idea of the word pre-eminently qualifies it, — namely, a condition of complete envelopment. An object, which is in a condition of envelopment within a fluid or other related substance, is in a position best qualified to de- velop, exhaustively, the characteristic quality of the invest- ing medium. That this is true, from the nature of the case, is obvious. That this ofiice is, in fact, performed by ^aizriZu), is shown by additional statements of Dr. Conant. He says, " By analogy, it expressed the coming into a new state of life or experience, in which one was as it were inclosed and swallowed up, so that, temporarily or permanently, he belonged wholly to it." A remarkable deduction from a dipping ! "Coming" is italicized. Is it meant to indicate that ^ar.-cilo) has anything to do with the manner of transition from one state into another? whether by plunging, dipping, sinking, falling, running, walking, or " coming" in any other conceivable way ? If so, nothing could be more groundless. "Baptized into anj^ state of life or experience" indicates a complete change of condition characterized by the nature of such state or experience whatever it may be ; as to the manner of "coming" into such state or experience the lan- guage says nothing. To be " inclosed and swallowed up as it were'''' is a nonentity by self- declaration. As a reality it must, without a miracle, involve misery and death as much as Jonah's being "inclosed and swallowed up" in the whale's belly. The Greek word, in secondary use, has nothing to do with " inclosure and swallowing up," except as allusively 58 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. to that condition of things in physical relations by which influence is fully developed. And this is the only use which is made by Dr. Conant of such " as it were" condition; for he declares that the only reality expressed is, that a man "baptized into a new state of life" thenceforward '•'■ belongs wholly to such state," that is to say, is brought under its con- trolling influence. If this is not the doctrine of Classic Bap- tism, then I do not know how to express it. Again, it is said, " one was baptized in (there is no authority for ' in,' it should be by) wine, when his faculties were totally over- borne and ijrostrated by it." Here " controlling" influence is directly acknowledged without the " inclosure and swallow- ing up," which has no existence, in such usage, but in a dis- eased imagination. So, also, " one was baptized with soph- istries, when his mind was wholly confounded by them." Here, again, we have the unequivocal acknowledgment that /9a--r:'Cw, in such usagc, expresses controlling influence char- acterized by the nature of the adjunct. And this receives distinct, general enunciation in the words immediately fol- lowing, — " the relation in which it (/SaTrntw) was used asso- ciated with it, for the time being, the ideas peculiar to that relation." What is this but the controlling assimilative in- fluence of Classic Baptism, and the developed " qualitas," " vis," " Suva/icq," of Judaic Baptism ? It has been my endeavor to give a faithful exhibition of the teachings of Dr. Conant as to the meaning of this word. I do not believe that a comparative study of all those teach- ings can furnish any other results. When the error as to fianriZoj expressing act is corrected, from Dr. Conant's own teachings, and the ground-thought of condition (intusposition) is substituted for " act," and when the farther consequent correction is made, namely, the rejection of act as the basis of interpreting metaphor, and condition as the source of in- fluence, is substituted for it, then the teachings of Dr. Co- nant will overturn the theory and establish the results of Classic and Judaic Baptism. Verbally Dr. Conant says, that both Stourdza and Carson are right, ^uTtzi'^u) had but one EXAMINATIONS OP CRITICISMS. 59 meaning for two thousand years, which meaning was an act equally well expressed by the diverse " plunge" and " dip;" in reality he proves, most indubitably, that iSanriZoj never did express an ad whether of " plunge " or " dip," but a condition resultant from an unexpressed act. President Alexander Campbell, Baptism, p. 148. " I would rather say, fianriZu) is a word oi specific action.^' " There is no need of any other proof that ^a-KziZcu signifies a specific act. If then ^a.r.ri'^u) once mean dip, it never can mean any other acts unless those actions are identically the same. It means to dip by consent of the whole world, and being a specific word, it never can have but one meaning." The President of Bethany, like all others, under the iron stringency of theory brings out specific act as the meaning, and dip as its representative, only to sink it out of sight in immerse just as soon as he comes to the exposition of his- torical baptisms. It is as great a folly to take pilunge, dip, and immerse as ground-thoughts, and to expect that their language development would be the same, as to take wheat, oats, and barley for seed, and expect each, in harvest, to bear the same grain as each other one. Alexander Campbell, although outside of the regular Baptist ranks, stands squarely with them on the theoretic platform, one meaning, and that meaning a specific act. There are evidently two features of uniformity among all these writers : 1. They all say one thing; 2. They all work out another thing. We are, now, prepared to " see all the lexicons," to learn whether lexicographers indorse the one thing that is said, or the other thing that is done. LEXICONS. "All the lexicons" cannot be produced; but if any one should think the number insufficient, there is full liberty to add indefinitely to the list. Scapula : mergo seu immergo, item submerge, item abluo, lavo. 60 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. Stephens : mergo seu immergo, ut quae tingendi aiit ablu- endi gratia, aqua immergimns. BASiLEiB : immergo. BuD^us: immergo, mergo: pessundo, demergo, submergo, intingo uiiguento,raedicor, imbuo, colore inficio, inficio. Stockius : lavo, baptizo : proprie; est immergere ac intiu- gere iu aquam; est lavare, abluere (tropice). Per Synechdochen, designat totum Johannis miuisterium, miraculosam Sanctus S. eiFnsionem. Passow: (idr.Tu) et /JajTTt'Cw: mergo, immergo, tiiigo — quod sit immergendo ; differt a duvat quod est profundum petere et penitus submergi. SuiCER: mergo, immergo, submergo, aqua obruo; abluo, lavo. ScHLEUSNER : 1. Proprie ; immergo ac intingo, in aquam im- mergo. 2. lavo, abluo (quia hand raro aliquid immergi ac intingi solet ut lavetur). ScHCETGEN : mergo, immergo, abluo, lavo, largiter profundo. Damm : ^arMlo} et fidizTu): descendere facio, immergo, intingo. Hedericus: (1) mergo, immergo, aqua obruo, (2) abluo, lavo, (3) baptizo signiticatu sacro. "Wahl : a jSr/TTToj, mergo ; saepius mergo in 'N. T. 1. immergo. 2. pro vtTTTU} lavo. Robertson's Schrevelii : mergo, lavo. Bretschneider : lavo, abluo — immergo in aquas ; submergo. Passow, Leipzig, 1831 : oft und wicderbolt eintauchen, un- tertauchen, daher benitzen, anfeuchten, begiessen, iibertr, 6t (isfiavriaiitvoi, betruukene, die sich begoessen haben, vino madidi. Parkhurst : from /Jarrrw to dip ; to dip, immerse, or plunge in water; Mid. and Pass., to wash oneself, be washed, wash ; to baptize, to wash in or with water in token of purification from sin and from spiritual pollution ; to baptize as with cloud and sea; baptized (not unto, as our English version has it, but) into Moses, i. e., into the Covenant, &c.; into Christ, &c.; Figurative of the Holy S[>irit, &c, Robinson : to dip in, to sink, to immerse ; to wash, to lave, EXAMINATIONS OF CKITICISMS. 61 to cleanse by washing ; to baptize, to administer the rite of baptism. LiDDELL AND ScoTT : to dip in or under water ; of ships, to sink them ; metaphorically of the crowds who flocked hito Jerusalem at the time of the siege. Pass., to bathe; metaphorically, soaked in wine; over head and ears in debt ; a boy drowned in questions. II. To draw water, wine, &c. ; III. To baptize. DoNEGAN : to immerse repeatedly into a liquid ; to submerge, to soak thoroughly, to saturate; metonjmiically, to drench with wine; to dip in a vessel and draw. Sophocles: (/Sarrrw) to dip, to immerse; to sink, to be drowned as the effect of sinking, to sink. Tropically, to afflict, to soak in liquor, intoxicated ; oppressed by debt; sunk in ignorance. 2. Mid., to perform ablution, to bathe. II. Bathed in tears, to plunge a knife. 4. Baptizo, mergo, mergito, tingo, or tinguo, to baptize. A glance at these definitions will show how well grounded was Dr. Carson's acknowledgment, that " all the lexicogra- phers" were against him as to his notion that ^a-ziXoj had no secondary meaning. This is the general doctrine of the theorists, and as a like error was once held by them respect- ing ^dTZTw, which was a perpetually occurring vice vitiating the interpretation of that word, and must do so in the case of every other word, I will give Dr. Carson's statement in his own language, italics, and capitals. " BAPTO, the root, I have shown to possess two meanings, and two only, to dij) and to dye. BAPTIZO, I have asserted has but one signi- fication. It has been formed on the primary meaning of the root, and has never admitted the secondary. !N"ow, both these things have been mistaken by writers on both sides of this controversy. It has been generally taken for granted that the two words are equally applicable to baptism ; and that they both equally signify to di/e. Both of them are sup- posed in a secondary sense to signify to imsh or moisten. I do not admit this with respect to either. I have already proved this with respect to BAPTO ; the proof is equally 62 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. strong- with respect to BAPTIZO. My position is, that it ALWAYS SIGNIFIES TO DIP : NEVER EXPRESSING ANYTHING BUT MODE. Now, as I have all the lexicographers and commen- tators against me in this opinion, it will be necessary to say a word or two with respect to the authority of lexicons. Many may be startled at the idea of refusing to submit to the unanimous authority of lexicons, as an instance of the boldest skepticism. Are lexicons, it may be said, of no authority ? Now, I admit that lexicons are an authority, but they are not an ultimate authority. Lexicographers have been guided by their own judgment in examining the various pas- sages in which a word occurs; and it is still competent for every man to have recourse to the same sources. The -mean- ing of a word must be determined by an actual inspectioii of the passages in which it occurs, as often as any one chooses to dispute the judgment of the lexicographer.'' Dr. Carson and friends, thus, confess themselves to be at war with "all lexicographers" as to /SarTiT"' having a sec- ondary meaning. But this confession extends its influence beyond the simple fact of error as to secondary meaning. Every secondary meaning is inseparably connected with the primary meaning by a natural and obvious bond. Now, the theory insists upon it, that the primary meaning is an act ■characterized by mode and nothing but mode, and that such act forms the basis of all metaphorical usage. But is there anything like modality of act in the secondary meaning of this word? There is none whatever. Lexicographers give "wash," and "cleanse," by more than twenty varying or repeated defining terms, as the secondary meaning of this verb; and in washing or cleansing, there is no modal act, whether of dip, plunge, sink, or anything else. So with re- gard to other secondary meanings — " intingo unguento, in- ficio colore, largiter profundo, imbuo, inficio, medicor, benit- zen, anfeuchten, begiessen, betrinken, to afflict, to oppress, to drown, to saturate" — these are the farthest possible re- moved from modal act as their basis. We then conclude, that the lexicographers not only difi'ered from the theorists as to a secondary meaning, but that the nature of the EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 63 secondary meanings assigned by them to the word prove that they dift'ered from tlie theorists entirely as to the nature of the primary meaning. Whether this conclusion be cor- rect or not we shall be better able to determine by looking, directly, at the primary meanings assigned. And in doing so, we find that lexicographers furnish us with mergo, and its compounds, together with " immerse," and its equivalents (in which there is no modal act), more than thirty times ; while the modal act in Hugo, " dip," is represented only some half dozen times; "sink," three times; and "plunge," scarcely at all. This rare use of words of specific act to de- fine this term (in a throng of words utterly devoid of modality in the act) is conclusive proof, that those who used them did not mean to use them in their modalit}', but for other con- siderations pertaining to them. None knew better than these lexicographers, that the same word could neither ex- press two diverse acts, nor a modal act and a result of that or any other act as its primary meaning. They could not, therefore, have used several diverse acts to express the mean- ing of the same word. The point in which these and other diverse acts meet together is in the change of condition char- acterized by complete envelopment, which change of condi- tion, and not act, they express, mainly, by " mergo." There is no evidence, worthy of consideration, to be deduced from the lexicons to prove, that they who made them supposed for a moment that /SaTrrt'C^ expressed act, specific or general. The evidence is all one way, proving that it expressed result effected by unexpressed act. But several words may express condition, and have envel- opment as a common characteristic of that condition, and still have a diverse language development. This is true of fioOiZo), and ^anriZu). In many cases of primary use either of these words might be indifferently employed. But while there are few cases in which the former is used in which the latter might not be substituted for ir, the converse is by no means true ; ^anu^u) has a vastly greater and more diverse range of usage than (iudiZw. And while the latter is limited to the expression of destructive influences, the former has no 64 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. such limitation ; but is adapted to express the development of any influence which is penetrating, pervading, and assim- ilating in its character. There could be no greater mistake than to suppose that this word carried simply, or carried always, with it the idea of envelopment. BuOi'^u) is translated " to throw into, to sink into the deep." Does the word express the modal acts to throw, to sink? Farther illustration may be found in immerse and steep. Both of these words are charac- terized by an enveloping element, but their usage differs as widely as possible. The former is never used to express a development of the quality of the encompassing medium ; the latter is constantly so used. And to perform this same duty is a leading characteristic of ;3a-T;tw, which " immerse" is just as incompetent to fulfil as it would be to perform the functions of "steep." That the lexicographers understood that the function of ^aTTTcZo) was to express that controlling influence which so naturally belongs to an encompassing medium is evident from their secondary meanings, which could only originate in such a source. To what else could be due such meanings as " to cleanse religiously," " to imbue," " to infect," " to medicate," "to saturate," "to aiflict," "to oppress," "to bewilder," "to intoxicate?" From what "specific act" could such meanings spring? What " specific act" is re- vealed as present and running through these meanings as their unifying hond ? The lexicons and the theory are not at one. But Dr. Carson says, "This word has been formed on the primary meaning of the root, and has never admitted the sccondarj'. My position is that it always signifies dip; never expressing anything but mode." For this statement there is not the shadow of support, as seen hy the fiicts of usage and the defining terms of lexicographers. The re- verse statement would be far nearer the truth, if indeed it be not the absolute truth. There is no evidence that liaTzriZut does ever give expression to dip in its specific character. There is no evidence that it expresses modal act of any kind. There is no conclusive evidence that " this word has been EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 65 formed on the primary meaning of the root." There is, I think, conclusive evidence to the contrary. It is incredible that a second word should be created which was to be the simple ditto of one already existing. The whole history of the word declares that what was a priori incredible has, in realitj^, no existence. The attributes of a dipping — feeble- ness and evanescence — nowhere attach themselves to the usage of this word. On the other hand, the general char- acteristics of the secondary meaning of the root appear in the boldest relief through all the history of the word. I say the general characteristics, for, of course, it can have nothing to do with the specialty of ^dnrcu second in the direction of (Eyeing, staining, coloring, &c. But this being laid aside, we have an object placed within an enveloping medium, by an unexpressed act, without limitation of time as to its continu- ance, for the purpose of developing the quality of the en- compassing element by its penetrating, pervading^ and as- similating the object to itself alike in iSaKzl^u) and in pjdizxm second. 2. And as in the case of ^drixin second^ we have, in progressive usage, the encompassing feature of the influential agency laid aside and qualities of like characteristics devel- oped, in any way, harmonious with their nature; so is it with [ianriZoi. BaizTi^u) is an extension of /Sctrrrw second (its pre- occupied dye-tub excluded), with all its rights and privileges as to freedom of act and rejection of envelopment, and ad- vancing to give full development to characteristic qualities, powers, and influences over appropriate objects. Few, I think, can look at the usage o^ (idnru} first, and /Sarrw second, and doubt where the immediate relationship of /3a;r-!'C«> is to be found. This view harmonizes with that of Gram- marians who derive /SaTrrt'^w from fidTntK, a derivative from (idTZTto second. The Hindoo theory, which rests the world on the back of a tortoise, is as just as that which rests the usage of /SaTTTttw on dip. Whether Professor Arnold still thinks that there is an elephantine power in "plunge, literal and universal," to uphold the theory, when that of the tortoise fails, I do not kuow. 66 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. WANT OF GENERALIZATION. The definitions of this word as given by the lexicons are too individual and isolated. They are often very alien from each other in some outstanding features, and do not present an obvious radical unity. There is a want of generalization which would group the various cases together under some common characteristic. This is necessary when the same word is defined by mcrgo^ im-mcrgo, suh-iiiergo^ dc-mergo, jies- sundo, aqua obruo, descender e facio, plunge, sink, dip. Dr. Car- son attempts to efiect such generalization by swallowing up all other terms in " dip." He might as well attempt to put the millions of London into one room, eight by ten. Hia own friends begin to feel the folly of this and shrink back from a "senseless dipping." Professor Arnold would remedy this error by substituting "plunge." But "the venerable Booth" says that this is only exchanging that which is " senseless" for something which is " ridiculous." Dr. Conant proposes to remedy the difficulty through " im- merse," used in a double sense, now as expressive of act {put into), and now of condition (jyiU under), using the one or the other as the exigency of the case may demand. But this is only a fruitless attempt to substitute the impossible for what his friends have condemned as "senseless" and " ridiculous." I submit, with cheerful deference, to all who are disposed to examine the facts of the case, Avhether the true and only element of unity in such defining terms is not found in inness of condition — mersion. If this be true, then they should be grouped together under such ground-thought. But there is another class of defining terms, such as " iu- tingo ungLiento, medicor, imbuo, colore inficio, inficio" (Budffius); "benitzen, anfeuchten, begiessen, betrinkeu" (Passow, Franz); "flocking crowds, soaked in wine, over head and ears in debt, drowned in questions" (Liddell and Scott); "soak thoroughly, drench with wine, saturate" (Donegau); "to be drowned (as effect), to afflict, to soak in liquor, to intoxicate, to oppress, to sink in ignorance" (Sophocles); which require another generalization. These EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 67 are all cases which indicate not an act to be done, but an end to be accomplished, an influence or quality to have its highest development. Nothing is more obvious than that a condition of mersion is calculated to influence the object in such mersion, in the completest degree, by such quality as may belong to the investing element. Hence proceeds the secondary mean- ing of controlling influence eftected in other ways than by mersion. Some of the lexicographers tell us expressly, that it is on this feature that they ground their secondary moan- ing. Thus Schleusner says, " Lavo, abluo, quod hand rare aliquid immergi ac intingi solet ut lavetur;" and Stephens, in like manner, says, "Ut qu?e tingendi aut ablueudi, gratia aqua immergimus." While washing or ablution may be secured by putting a thing into water, it is, also, true that it may be and commonly was efleeted otherwise ; and in re- ligious washings and ablutions was almost universally efleeted in other ways. It is also true, that this secondary meaning of" washing," " cleansing" (so universally ascribed by lexicographe'rs to this word), applies to religious purifica- tions. I do not know of a single instance in Classic, Jewish, or Christian writings in which /SaTrrt'Co is used to denote a physical cleansing. It is expressly stated in some of the lexicons, that it was religious washings which they had in view. Thus Hedericus says, " baptizo, significatu sacro;" and Parkhurst says, " To wash in or with water in token of purification from sin and spiritual pollution." The various defining terms, now under consideration, have no possible connection with the modality of act either in " dip" or in " plunge." That they do unite together under influence, characterized by thoroughness and assimilation, will, I think, be the judgment of all outside of the theory. And under this ground-thought they should be classified. The appropriation of /SaTrrj'Ctu, by Classic writers, to ex- press the influence of wine when drunk, is so frequent and so absolute, that it fairly claims the right and power to ex- press that influence directly; and, in like manner, this same word is so frequently and absolutely used, both by Jewish 68 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. and Christian writers, in religious rites, that it, no less justly, claims the right and power to express, directly, the purifying influence (ceremonially or symbolly) of such rites. The conclusion, then, to which we are brought, after "seeing all the lexicons," is this: We may and, in my judgment, must define substantially thus : I. BAUTIZ^, TO MERSE : (To effect the intusposition of an object within a closely investing element, by any competent act or acts, for an indefinite time.) II. TO BAPTIZE : (To effect a mersive (complete and assimilative) influence, thoroughly changing the condition (whether physical, mental, or moral), without limitation in the act, in the time of continuance, or in the character of the influence.) III. (1) To INTOXICATE ; (2) To PURIFY, Ceremonially or symbolly. How much this decision, of the lexicons, differs from that to which we were conducted, by usage, in Classic and Judaic Baptism, I leave for others to determine. It may be assumed, however, that the theorists will no longer say that we fled from the lexicons to usage because " all the lexicog- raphers were against us." And if any should feel that the gratification of their desire " to be assailed by Scapula and Stephens" has brought big rocks into uncomfortable prox- imity to their " position," they must not complain of those who have obligingly met their earnest request. BAPTIST QUARTERLY — " UNLEARNED AND HALF LEARNED." " J. T, C," in another article of the Baptist Quarterly, says : " It is not creditable to our religious journalism that such works as Mr. Dale's Classic Baptism should find coun- tenance or favor in any quarter. Such a caricature of philo- logical discussion has any but a healthy influence on the field of scientific inquiry, and tends only to embitter denomi- national strife. We feel assured that the scholarship of the country silently condemns, as it sometimes does audibly, EXAMINATIONS OF CRITICISMS. 69 such aiiemjyis to impose 07i the unlearned and the half learned^ It appears to be singularly difficult for " J. T. C." and his friends to harmonize in their estimate of the demerits of « Mr. Dale's works." A Baptist theological professor, and a particular friend of " J. T. C," thus writes in this same Baptist Quarterly : " Men eminent in the pulpit and the lecture-room have been unable adequately to express their admiration of the extra- ordinary skill and learning which Mr. Dale has brought to his task, and their delight at the accession to their ranks of this new and potent ally. Mr. Dale must not be deceived by this multitudinous din of applause." The N'ational Baptist mentions the names of some of those " unlearned and half learned men imposed upon by Classic Baptism." They are "Jonathan Edwards, President of Washington and Jefferson College, Pennsylvania; Thomas H. Skinner, Professor of Union Theological Seminary, !N'ew York; William S. Plummer, Professor of Columbia Theo- logical Seminary, South Carolina ; Charles Hodge, Professor of Princeton Theological Seminary, Kew Jersey; Lyman Coleman, Professor of La Fayette College ; and many others;" among which "many others," the ISTational Baptist might have enumerated Bishop Stevens, of Pennsylvania; Bishop Coxe, of New York; Bishop Clarke, of Rhode Island; Bishop Cummins, of Kentucky; Bishop Lee, of Delaware; Bishop Simpson, M. E., of Pennsylvania; Bishop Scott, M. E., of Delaware; and scores of like "unlearned and half learned men," just the people (?) to be imposed upon by "a caricature of philological discussion." And those weeklies, monthlies, and quarterlies, East, West, ISTorth, and South, which have brought "discredit" upon our religious journalism by showing " countenance and favor" to Mr. Dale's works, will please take warning, and hereafter forever hold their peace, or speak in that vocabulary which proves membership in " the scholarship of the country" by crying, "trickster," " thimblerigger," " caricaturist," " impostor," and " ignoramus." 70 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. To these remarks on things adjacent to the special point of our investigation I will only add that I am well convinced that "J. T. C." can write on this subject something better than " a philological caricature." And should it please him BO to do, he will find that (however incompetent the present writer may be) there are four thousand " mere country pas- tors" in the Presbyterian church, who, coming dusty and bronzed from the prairie and the mountain, from the cross- road and the log cabin, from the coal mine and the gold digging, are fully competent " to read, mark, and inwardly digest" anything which he may write, without danger of being imposed upon by "unlearned or half learned" lucu- brations, or, even, by theories learnedly sustained against the laws of language and the teachings of the word of God. JOHANNIC BAPTISM CONSIDERED IN ITS NATURE AND AS ILLUSTRATIVE OF THE USAGE or B A nr I zsi. Various Vieivs. JoHANNic Baptism belongs exclusively to the Holy Scrip- tures. Ill connection with this baptism we meet for the first time with the Greek word /Ja-n'Cw as employed by inspired men. And the related words, fiannaTijc; and ^dr.riffiia, we meet, chronologically, for the first time in any writings. This fact is of the highest importance. It is an assertion by inspired writers of the highest sovereignty, within the realm and laws of language, to use, to modify, or to form words according to the exigencies created by the utterance of in- spired truth. 'Bo thoughtful man will claim for inspired men an arbitrary authority over the usage or meaning of words. And no wise man will attempt to fetter these writers to a sterile usage of words and meanings antedating the fruitful thoughts of inspiration. With the most unbounded confidence in the ipsissima verba, of inspiration as well-chosen words, having a precise meaning which may be learned by the use of proper helps without and within the Scriptures, in the docile looking for light unto their only wise Author, I will endeavor, thus, to learn the scriptural meaning and usage of that word which is the special end of this inquiry. John's baptism on its first announcement awakened in- quiry as to its origin — " Was it from heaven or of men?" and, also, as to its nature — " What baptism dost thou bap- tize?" But it was not until more than a thousand years (71) 72 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. after bis ministry had been completed, tbat any one thought it worth while to ask — " In what mode did John use water in ritual baptism?" There is every reason to believe that we can find satisfactory answers to the evidently important and scriptural inquiries as to the authority and nature of John's baptism ; and if the inquiry respecting the manner in which he used the symbol water be either important or scriptural, we shall, no doubt, also, find its solution. Should we, however, be disappointed in this, we may bear such dis- appointment with equanimity on the ground, that it was re- jected from record by inspiration, and that God's people never felt the need of making inquiry about it for the space of a thousand and a half thousand years. Opinion as to the nature and pow-er of John's baptism has been diverse. This diversity, however, has not arisen, so much, under an independent examination of the terms and circumstances of the baptism, as under the demands of a previously conceived religious system. Early Christian writers agreed, very generally, in saying, that John's baptism was, in its nature, superior to Jewish baptism, but, no less, inferior to Christian baptism. Their sentiment is well expressed b}^ Chrj'sostom in the following passage : " The baptism of John was, indeed, far superior to the Jewish but inferior to ours ; it was a kind of bridge between the two baptisms leading from that to this." INIore particularly they believed, that John's baptism was destitute of the Holy Spirit and of power to remit sins. If this lan- guage be interpreted according to its terras it is obvious, that "baptism" can by no possibility refer to "the mode and nothing but the mode" of using the water. According to the theory, Jewish baptism, and John's baptism, and Christian baptism, were pure and identical forms ; but ac- cording to these early Greek writers they were characterized not by uniformity but by divcrsit}-. Doubtless this may all be rectified by the introduction of "figure" (that servant of all work to the theory) by which one thing is made to take the place of some other thing; but it has been shown, that words expressive of definite action or of condition, do come VARIOUS VIEWS. 73 to express, directly, the effects resultant from such action or condition ; and, in particular, it has been shown, that this is true of ^oKxi^u). Until this is disproved these early writings must be allowed to stand as unfigured utterances when they declare, that baptism Judaically administered differed from baptism Johannically administered ; and baptism Johannic- ally administered differed from baptism Christianly admin- istered; and baptism Christianly administered differed from both the others. They speak of ashes, blood, and water as possessed of diverse powers in their ritual use, and therefore effecting diverse conditions on the part of those to whom they are ritually applied. These diverse conditions they designate as Jewish baptism, John's baptism. Christian bap- tism. And I do not see but that it must so stand, inasmuch as the authority to revise and correct their writings has not been bequeathed to any after generation. The Roman Catholic Church adopts, unreservedly, these views of the early Christian writers. The Tractarians share, with as little reserve, in the same sentiments. The Re- formers, generally, did not adopt these views, or, at least, not without both modihcations and differences. Calvin- says : " This is the peculiarity of Baptism, that it is said to be an outward representation of repentance for the forgive- ness of sins. ISTow, as the meaning, and power, and nature, of that baptism are the same as ours, if we judge of the figure by its true import, it is incorrect to say, that the bap- tism of John is different from the baptism of Christ. It ought not to have any weight with us that an opinion has long and extensively prevailed that John's baptism differs from ours. "We must learn to form our judgment from the matter as it stands, and not from the mistaken opinions of men." Lightfoot says, " The baptism of John and the bap- tism of the Apostles was one and the same." Among more modern writers subordinate differences are revealed. Dr. Halley says : " To be baptized, then, was to be initiated as a disciple or learner of the new doctrine — the speedy coming of Christ. Of this baptism of John Ave have, I think, sufficient evidence for determining two particulars, 74 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. the one that it was indiscriminately administered to all ap- plicants, the other that it effected no change, moral or spiritual, upon their minds. The baptism of John and of the disciples during our Lord's personal ministry were really Christian baptisms." Dr. Miller, on the other hand, says : " John's baptism was not Christian baptism." Pro- fessor Wilson (Royal College, Belfast) says : " The baptism of repentance for the remission of sins, whether adminis- tered by John, or the disciples of Jesus, uniformly appears in the character of a rite, which foes and followers equally comprehended." Baptist writers, generally, identify the baptism of John with the baptism of Christianity. Thus Stovel says : " The baptized person was committed to all the intents and pur- poses of the kingdom of heaven. This dealing with indi- viduals, and setting them apart for the kingdom of Christ, because of their personal faith and repentance, commenced with John, it formed the peculiarity of his ministration." Dr. Carson, as usual, is very positive and very explicit; he says : " What is baptism in one case is baptism in another. Whatever difference there may be, in any other respect, be- tween the baptism of John and the baptism of Christ, there could he no difference in the 7node." Inasmuch as this writer believes that baptism is essentially mode and its conception is exhausted in its mode, there could not possibly be any difference between these two baptisms, or any other con- ceivable number of baptisms from any quarter. But the early Cliristian writers declare, with one voice, that these baptisms were diverse. The conceptions, then, of baptism entertained, respectively, by these writers and by Dr. Car- sou must have been radically different. To attempt to unify these statements by saying, that the Patrists did not refer to the mode when they said that one of these baptisms differed from the other, is to make them say, on the princii)les of the theory, that John's baptism (mode) differed from Christian baptism (mode), yet John's mode (baptism) was the same as the Christian mode (baptism). Robert Hall thinks that there is a contrast rather than an agreement between the two VARIOUS VIEWS. 75 baptisms — " The baptism instituted by our Lord is in Scrip- ture distinguished from that of the Forerunner by the su- perior effects with which it was accompanied, so that instead of being confounded they are contrasted in the Sacred Writings." The diversity exliibited in some of these statements is more apparent than real. The writers have not the same thing in view. The baptism of John (I mean baptism prop- erly and scripturally speaking, not a modal use of water) agreed, in certain respects, with Christian baptism (again rejecting all reference to a modal use of water), while in cer- tain other respects it differed from it. It is proper to say, that the two baptisms, while distinguished by distinctive characteristics, were in perfect harmony with each other. It is not proper to say, that they are the same baptism in all respects, l^or are they so far the same that they could be interchanged. Christian baptism is complementary of John's baptism. The phraseology, "Baptism of John," implies a distinctive difference between this baptism and other baptisms, and es- pecially between this baptism and Jewish baptism, Avith which it was brought into contact and contrast. It could not be brought into comparison with Christian baptism, for that baptism had not yet received development. The discrimina- ting difference between this and other baptisms must be sought in one or the other of the only two elements entering into the expressive phrase — " John's baptism." It must be found in John personally or in the baptism. That there is room for discriminating between John as a preacher of bap- tism and the administrator of the ritual ordinance of bap- tism, and Christ or the Holy Spirit, the divine executors of baptism, is most obvious. This amazing diff'erence is most pointedly stated by John himself. While he places the bap- tism preached by him in immediate contact with Christ and of its proper nature preparative for and essential to welcom- ing him at his coming, he does at the same time separate the ritual use of water (grounded on this baptism preached), both as to its nature and power by a limitless distance from 76 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. Christ and his kingdom. But the phrase under considera- tion as used in Scripture, never raises the question as to the measure of power invested, personally, in John, or the Jew- ish administrator, as causative of the diiference in their re- spective baptisms. No solution of the question as to the differential nature of John's baptism is to be found in the powers of the administrator. The difference must be found in the baptism. But if in the baptism, yet, not in the act by which the baptism is effected. It is in proof that the form of act by which a baptism is effected is a matter of in- finite indifference. TTie Jews used, indifferently, the varied action of sprinkling, pouring, washing, in effecting their baptism ; and John might use any one of these or any other act, and it could not be a discriminating mark of his baptism, for there is no such element entering into the essence of baptism. The Jew^s used, indifferently, ashes, blood, fire, water, in eflecting their baptism; and John might have used some one of these or some other thing in his baptism, and the specialty of his baptism have not been, thereby, deter- mined. The instrumental means may determine the char- acter of a baptism, but does not do so necessarily. As a matter of fact the Jew used water in his baptism, and John, likewise, used water in his baptism ; still, their baptisms were not the same. The Jew may have administered his baptism to men, women, and children, beds, pots, and cups; and John may have baptized only men or pots; and this would not have determined the peculiarity of his baptism. The subjects of baptism do not, bj^ any necessity, control the baptism. Although they may, by their nature, limit the application of the baptism. Beds, pots, and cups were, in their nature, well adapted to be objects of Jewish baptism; but that same nature excluded them, in the most absolute manner, from John's baptism. Bengel, speaking of the distinguishing character of John's baptism, says: "At the baptism of repentance men con- fessed their sins, at the baptism of Christ they confessed Christ." Olshausen, most wisely, disjoins and j^et conjoins preaching baptism and ritual baptism : " It would readily THE ESSENCE OF BAPTISM. 77 occur to him to represent by a symbolical rite the repentance which he preached. The Divine Spirit, who quickened him, was his guide in this institution as in all that he did; he was sent to baptize with water. The baptism of John cannot be identical with the sacrament of Baptism, which was not ordained till after the resurrection. It was a washino; of repentance, but not a washing of regeneration." THE ESSENCE OF BAPTISM. The absolute exclusion of " pots, cups, and couches," "legs, breasts, and shoulders" of sacrificial victims from "John's baptism" turns, wholly, on the nature of that bap- tism, John made demand for repentance. The utensils of domestic life and the elements of temple service could make no response to this demand. The baptism was not for, and could not, possibly, be received by such things. And, here, arises the question — Are baptisms distinguish- able not b}' the form of act by which they are effected, not by the subjects receiving the administration, not by the ele- ments used in the service, not by a physical envelopment or otherwise, but by a distinctive character, whether attained by uniformity or diversity in any or all of these particulars? And does this distinguishing character constitute the very baptism, so that as it is present or absent, the baptism has, or has not an existence ? We answer these questions in the affirmative, and say, that the phrase "John's baptism" neither expresses modal action, nor fluid envelopment, but a peculiar character or condition, separating it, in nature, especially from Jewish baptisms, and, in general, from all other baptisms endlessly diverse in character. It may be proper to introduce, here, some remarks as illustrative and sustaining these positions. That a baptism is expressive of the condition of an object brought into a state of physical envelopment by any competent act, for an indefinitely prolonged period of time, or which is brought under the power of some controlling influence without actual or suggested envelopment, is a truth which has been estab- 78 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. lished, ill the opinion of competent judges, by an amount of evidence seldom brought to the vindication of any philo- logical question. It follows, therefore, that when a baptism is spoken of (the character of which is not unquestionably determined), it is an open question, whether it belongs to the class of bap- tisms distinguished by plij'sical envelopment, or to that class which reje(its physical envelopment and presents only a men- tal or moral condition, the result of some controlling and assimilating influence. And, consequently, when Dr. Car- son says, in reference to the baptism of John and the bap- tism of Christ — " What was baptism in one case is baptism in another, there could be no diiference in the mode" — he makes tlie most unwarrantable assumptions: 1. That the mere use of the word baptism in any number or variety of cases establishes, in all, an identity of character; 2. That that identit}' is exhibited in mode; and 3. That that mode is a dipping. The language of Scripture — "the baptism of John," "the baptism of Moses," "the baptism of Christ" — involves of necessity discriminating difference. If, now, this discriminating difference be not exhausted in the differ- ence of persons — John, Moses, Christ — then it must be in the baptism ; but if in the baptism, then baptism cannot be modal act or modal envelopment, for such things do not allow of any discriminating differences. If to escape this conclusion it should be said, that " baptism" may include more than baptism^ it may take in appendages, and in these the difierence may be found, I answer: these appendages are essential to the baptism or they are not; if they are es- sential, then they are the ba[)tism ; if they are not essential, then they cannot expound the differences of baptisms. If it should be said, that a Hottentot differs from an Esquimaux, would we be satisfied that this statement was met by show- ing that the one was dressed in a cotton strip and the other in furs; that the one was housed in an open kraal and the other within walls of solid ice; that the one lived on fruits and the other on train oil? All these things may be true, and they may truly expound the differences in clothing, in ILLUSTRATION FROM CLASSIC BAPTISMS. 79 housing, and in eating; but do they expound the differential characteristics which distinguish a Hottentot from a Lap- lander? The theor}^ claims a difference for its baptism as compared with the baptism of the rest of the Christian world. Would it be judged satisfactory to expound this difference as consisting in the wearing in one case a water-proof suit and in the other case ordinary apparel ? Would anything be considered satisfactory but what related to the essence of baptism? If not, then, when the Scriptures teach a dif- ference between the baptism of Moses, and the baptism of John, and the baptism of Christ, we, in like manner, must insist that the differences shall be found in the essentials and not in the accidents of these baptisms. The necessity which is, here, laid upon the theory for departing from the simple and explicit statement of the Scriptures, is a necessity which is found to be evermore recurring in its history, and is the most conclusive evidence that it is not in harmony with the word of God. ILLUSTRATION FROM CLASSIC BAPTISMS. In farther elucidation and vindication of this position, I would refer to the illustrative Classic Baptisms of Thebe, Ishmael, and Satyrus. Were these baptisms identical or diverse in character? Inasmuch as the term "baptism" is applied equally to each, they must have a common element establishing a generic unity. And as they are distinguished from each other as the baptism of Thebe, the baptism of Ishmael, and the baptism of Satyrus, we look for differences which shall resolve baptism as a genus into its species. Carson says, that baptism is a simple, ultimate, unresolvable element ; that baptism is baptism ; that mode is mode ; that the meaning of the word is mode, and that this meaning was never changed. If this be true, then, this mode will be found in all these baptisms, and such mode will constitute the baptism. And, as matter of fact, there is mode in each baptism ; I was about to say, that it was found in the com- mon handing of the wine, but in this there may be diversity ; 80 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. I, then, fell back on the common drinking of the wine, but, here, there is no absolute assurance against diversity, and rest was found only in the common act of swallowing. This, I believe, is severely modal, a simple, ultimate, unre- solvable act, and which, according to the theory, must con- stitute the baptism. The only embarrassment in the case is to show that the modal act of swallowing is neither more nor less than the modal act of dipping, whose presence or absence we are told makes or mars a baptism. If this can be done the theory is safe so far as the bap- tisms of Thebe, of Ishmael, and of Satyrus are concerned. If any should be so doubtful of the success of such an at- tempt as to be unwilling to wait its issue, I will endeavor to indicate some other common element in which these bap- tisms agree, and which constitutes the justification in ap- plying a common name to cases which present specific difiFerences. Historically the baptism of Thebe was by wine, which she furnished profusely to her husband. The simple drinking of wine will not eflPect a baptism, nor can the drinking of any quantity eftect a dipping or an envelopment; but pro- fuse drinking will so develop the power of wine as to bring the mental faculties and the physical powers under its con- trol. This thorough change of condition (the passing out of a condition of sobriety into a condition of ebriety) is a bap- tized condition. It is so, generically, because it is a condi- tion eff<3cted by some controlling and assimilating influence; and it is so, specifically, to wit, the baptism of Thebe, because it is a specific influence effecting a specific condition. The wine-drinldng causative of this baptism, and the drunken condition caused by this wine-drinking, are alike inseparable from this Thebe baptism. The one cannot be without the other. If the peculiarity which marks the influence of the agency is known, then the peculiarity which characterizes the condition is equally known. The baptism of Ishmael was by wine like that of Thebe, and yet was not specifically the same. It was a baptism be- yond that baptism. It was a development of the power of ILLUSTRATION FROxM CLASSIC BAPTISMS. 81 drunkenness effecting a still farther and peculiar controlling influence over mind and body, introducing them into a con- dition of " insensibility and sleep." Now, no one needs to be told, that there is an amazing difference between the con- dition of a man bewildered in mind and staggering in walk, and a man lying under the table insensible and asleep. "Wine enters into both conditions as the ruling power; in the one case it is the immediate influence, in the other case it is the proximate influence ; botlK conditions are properly called baptisms, because they both have the characteristic of con- dition resultant from some controlling influence ; and they are speciflcally diverse baptisms, because the specific con- trolling influence of wine over a sober man is diverse from the specific controlling influence of drunkenness over an in- toxicated man. This specific diflerence is stated, with a fjal- ness and a clearness beyond which language cannot go, when we are told, that " Ishmael baptized Gedaliah by drunken- ness into insensibility and sleep." The statement that Ish- mael "baptized" Gedaliah conveys no specific information; while the statement that "he baptized him into iy\ sensibility^^ has a sharpness which will cut its way irresistibly through all barriers of modal act, or water envelopment, that ever were or that ever can be constructed. The baptism of Satyrus exhibits the element of wine, but not as the controlling power effecting the baptism. There was, also, in it " insensibility and sleep," and yet not of the same specific character with that which is effected by over- powering drunkenness. There was not enough of wine drunk to cause ebriety, consequently that w^as not the bap- tism ; if there was no ebriety, then there was no baptism from this cause. But there was a baptism of Satyrus. What was it? It was a thoroughly changed condition resultant from the control- ling influence of an opiate drug swallowed by being mingled in a cup of wine. In these facts we find justification for applying the generic term baptism to this transaction, be- cause there is a condition resultant from a controlling in- fluence which has left its characteristic enstamped upon the 6 82 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. subject of its power; while they, also, vindicate the dis- crimination of this baptism as the baptism of Sati^rus, from the baptism of Jlicbe^ and the baptism of Ishmael, because, specifically, it ranks with neither of these baptisms. These facts show in the most indubitable manner, that where the same fluid element is present, and the same formal act is executed, the resultant baptism (not something else, some appendage or accident, but the very baptism) may be essentially diverse. This diversit}^ will, ordinarily, be desig- nated with clearness by the simple statement of the power eflectiiig the baptism, because the baptism receives its char- acteristic from the characteristic of this controlling influence; but if this baptizing power is capable of producing diverse conditions, immediately or remotely, then a specific designa- tion may be required in addition to the influence itself. Thus, the remoter wine baptism of Ishmael is saved from being confounded with the immediate wine baptism of Thebe by the superadded statement, that it was remotely by wine and immediately "by drunkenness into insensibility and sleep." Can anything be more unwise or more alien from outjut- ting facts, than the attempt to repudiate the distinctive char- acter of these baptisms by the round assertion, that " bap- tism in one case is baptism in another, there could be no difference in the mode ? " "these BAPTISJMS are FIGUPtATIVE." An attempt is made to get rid of these baptisms and bury them (if not " without benefit of clergy," yet beyond the reach of the clergy), in some bottomless abyss, by afiirming that these baptisms are "figurative." If by this term is meant that these are not actual and most real baptisms, the statement could not be more deeply stamped with error. Is not the condition of a drunken man, of a sleeping man, of a drugged man, a most substantial reality ? If it is meant to say, that these baptisms are not physical baptisms, then, again, I reply, the error, still, is as profound as in the other DIVERSITY OF BAPTISMS. 83 case. Is not drunkenness a physical condition? Does it not affect the intellect only as it affects the physical organs through which it operates ? Is not this, also, true of sleep ? And is it not, equally, true of drugged stupor? Is not wine a real, substantial fluid? Is not opium a real existence whose solidity may be seen, and felt, and weighed in the balances ? Do fluids and solids produce purely metaphysical, ideal, unreal, nonentical conditions ? Is it meant to say, that these baptisms are not " dipping " baptisms ? Then, the response may be given with a smile : Certainly if they are, appearances must be deceitful, for they have any other appearance ! Is it meant that there is no physical envelopment? I would not like to undertake to prove that there is, but I would like, very much, to see such attempt made on the part of those who affirm that " baptism in one case is baptism in another; there can be no difference in the mode." And tins more than Herculean task they must enter upon and perfect, or else confess (to the undoing of their theory), that the Greeks called conditions, without physical envelopment, baptisms. Finally : Is it meant, that although there is no physical envelopment, yet there is an imaginary envelopment ? The theory luxuriates in the realms of imagination. We need not care, so far as any practical end of this inquiry is con- cerned, to disturb its enjoyment there. But so far as mental science, or rhetorical exposition, or language development are concerned, it may be worth while to enter a denial and call for proof. And, flrst, I would ask : Of what is this fiction envelopment to be constituted ? With what, for example, is Thebe's husband to be enveloped in order to his baptism ? With vinous influence ? something that would make drunk come? Then there must be physical embodiment of this influence, and the imagination has con- structed a physical envelopment as truly as if the object were placed at earth's centre, and it were wrapped about with all continents and oceans. Besides, the imagination not only makes bankrupt all her powers in such vain endeavor, but plays the lunatic in assuming it, for we have 84 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. this vinous influence already operating in and through the man, with his full stomach as its interior base. Why, then, this "fifth wheel to the wagon?" A like issue is reached in attempting to eliminate from the baptisms of Ishraael and of Satyrus the act and the form of development assigned to them by the Greeks, and substituting for them acts most impracticable and forms most irrational. But, secondly', I would ask : If the imagination could construct a nonentity dipping or a nonentity envelopment, how could diverse re- sults spring out of envelopment, one and simple ? Whence the diverse baptisms: 1. Of Thebe — drunkenness; 2. Of Ishmael — insensibility and sleep; 3. Of Satyrus — drugged stupor? Is a remedy sought for this by impregnating these several nonentity envelopments with various energizing powers qualifying them for the needed end? Then, all hail! to the theory which abandons dipping-envelopment as a reed on which she has leaned but to pierce her hand, and, at length, accepts of controlling influences as executors of bap- tism and marking their diversity by enstampiug upon them their several characteristics. It is most obvious, that in these baptisms, and in all kin- dred baptisms, there is a declaration of controlling power exerted by a given influence over its object. This is made in the most direct and simple manner in the case of Thebe's baptism — otwco 8k tzoUw ' Ah^a'^Spw ^ar.riaaaa; here, it is uot wine as a fluid dipped into, made to envelop in any way, sprinkled upon or poured out, which effects the baptism, but as a fluid which may be drunk, and which when drunk (and not in any other way) develops a peculiar power con- trolling the physical system and the mental operations. As long as words shall have meaning, and common sense shall reign in their interpretation, these Greek words will declare wine to be the baptizing power, and the resultant condition the baptism, whose distinctive character is determined by that of wine, the baptizing power. The phraseology expressive of Ishmael's baptism (as limited to the baptizing power) is not so self-asserting as to the distinctive character of the baptism as is that of DIVERSITY OF BAPTISMS. 85 Thebe. It is evident that the phrase ^efianTKTfiivov vnd ixiO-qq will never be of so common occurrence as the phrase ^e^a-KTiaixivov oivuj. The possible conditions within the com- petency of drunkenness to effect are also various. Unless frequent usage, therefore, should identify it with some one condition in particular, there must be more or less ambiguity in the phrase "baptized by drunkenness." Where the greatest perspicuity is desired all ambiguity is removed in the most absolute measure by the addition of a verbal ele- ment. This is done by Josephus, in the present case, by saying, ^eijaTznaixivov uno niOr]'; elq dyaiGdyjffiav xa: u~vov. It IS impossible for language to express a definite baptism more definitely than is done by these words. The form of the phraseology carries us back to the primary use of jSanrt^^oj, where we see an object passing into some permeable ele- ment (never more to emerge so far as this Greek word is concerned), and therefore brought completely under the in- fluence of such element. It is impossible for Thebe's hus- band to enter, actually, "mto insensibility and sleep," and it would be labor lost if we could, imaginatively, give him such a local habitation, for withinness without influence would be nothing and worse than nothing, while to hunt up controlling influence through such left-handed method would, if found, be only to find what was already legiti- mately in possession by the allusion, stamped in the phra- seology, to the primary use. While, therefore, in the great majority of cases it may be sufiiciently clear what was the character of the baptism by a statement limited to the baptizing power, the addition of the element into which the baptism, by verbal figure, takes place, gives a precision to the statement beyond which lan- guage cannot go. After Josephus had once made the full statement ^eiSaiznaixivov VTzb idOr^q eii; dyaKTOrjffcav xai umov, there was no farther necessity for its repetition when the context clearly showed that he referred to this baptism. It would be abundantly sufficient for him to say, (ie^aTzncTijAvov ur.b jxidrj^, or simply §£(iar.Ttaixivov. The ellipsis would, readily, and must necessarily, be supplied. 86 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. In the baptism of Satyrus the statement is, tw d.uTu) ipapimxta xara^ar^riGaq. The context making explicit declaration of the peculiar power of the drug, namely, slec-p producing, the phrase (limited to the baptizing power) — " baptizing by the same drug" — has an explicitness, as to the nature of the bap- tism effected, which does not admit of increase b}' the ad- dition of any other words. The baptism of Thebe, then, expresses not a distinction in any accidents which may have been associated with the bap- tism, but a distinction in the baptism itself. It was a drunken baptism. The same is true of the baptism of Ishmael. It was a stupidly insensible baptism. And so of the baptism of Satyrus. It was a drugged stupor baptism. It is irrational and impracticable to convert these distinctions into accidents. In like manner, among scores of kindred baptisms, we have'the baptism of Otho, which was a baptism by debt; and the baptism of the Sophists, which was a baptism by ques- tions; and the baptism of Demosthenes, which was a baptism by contentious luords. So, also, we have baptism by grief, by taxes, by diseases, &c., &c., without number. Now, can any one, not born in lunacy and grown gray amid its phantasies, affirm, that all these baptisms are one and the same in nature? Is not the adjunct term introduced for the very purpose of precluding any such error, and for making affirmation of diversity? Unity of genus there is; diversity of species there must be. And this same affirmation is made again and again, most expressly, by the Patristic writers. If I ask for a definition of a watch spring, of a coach spring, of a loater spring, shall I be told that there is no difference, that a spring is a spring? There is, indeed, a generic common thought running through these phrases, but the adjunct terms, luatch spring, coach spring, water spring, do make and are designed to make an essential difference in the idea of " spring" itself. Are the differences expressed by woman's dress, man's dress, court dress, to be nullified and swept out of sight by the ut- terance of the wise saw — " what is dress in one case must be dress in another, there can be no difference in dress?" If one longs for a Pentecost baptism, shall he be furnished with DIVERSITY OF BAPTISMS. 87 a huge beaker of wine and be told — " Here it is, drink and be drunken, for Plato and Plutarch declare that drunken- ness is baptism, and what is baptism in one case must be baptism in another?" "We return, then, to the baptism of Moses, and the baptism of John, and the baptism of Christ, with the fullest evidence that these adjunct terms, Moses, John, Christ, do, by their natural force, qualify and give a determinate, distinguishing character to the baptisms with which they are respectively associated. In what these distinguishing characteristics con- sist these phrases give no information. They reveal the fact of a diversity ; the nature of the diversity must be sought elsewhere. Any one who will make investigation to this end will not labor in a barren field. The teaching of Scrip- ture is as explicit as language will allow. If it were said, that the philosophies of Greece gave their disciples a bap- tism into Platonism, a baptism into Stoicism, and a baptism into Epicureanism, would anj' one in the wide world imagine, that he was giving proof of singular perspicacity in proclaim- ing these baptisms to be " one and the same baptism, for baptism in one case must be baptism in another case ; there can be no difference in the mode ? " Could any one possibly understand otherwise than that these baptisms were diverse baptisms ; that the disciples of the Academy were baptized into, brought under the full influence of, the loftiest and the purest teachings of uninspired wisdom ; that the disciples of the Porch were baptized into, brought under the full in- fluence of, a cold fatalism ; that those who gathered around the feet of Epicurus were baptized into, brought under the full influence of, a centralized selfishness ? And is this unity without the most essential diversity ? In like manner the baptism of Moses is, as we have seen, a baptism into ceremonial purification, while the baptism of John is, as we shall see, a baptism into repentance for sin, and the baptism of Christ is a more glorious baptism into all the fruits of the incarnation — legal obedience, penal suf- fering, atoning death, triumphant resurrection, glorious as- cension, gracious mediation, intercession, and High priest- 05 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. hood of the Lamb of God. Do these baptisms sound like one and the same baptism ? In reference to that other and infinitely diverse question agitated in these latter days, namelj', " What was the man- ner in which John used water in his ritual baptism?" I have only to sa}', Our inquiry will lead us to examine every case in which (ianri'iu) and its related words occur, and if they should throw any light upon this very profound question whose terms are suggestive of such momentous issues (in- deed, almost mounting up to the high level of the schism- causing question — "Does Christianity require that our coat should be fastened with buttons or by hooks and eyes? "), we shall have the fullest opportunity to benefit by such light; but if we should find that they throw no light upon this question (which some think so pregnant with high and holy issues as to challenge their hallowed zeal in gulfing the church of God deep as the cities of the plain, and islanding the body and blood of Jesus amid impassable waters), we must be content to remain in ignorance whether it be due to its profundity, or to its atomistic character that the light of revelation has not been suflered to fall upon it. Only, I would beg leave to indulge the hope, that any who may take the trouble to follow this inquiry will believe that some other end has been had in view than a solution of the ques- tion — "How did John use water in ritual baptism?" If after having preached the gospel for more than a quarter of a century, I have not felt called upon to preach but once, formally, in answer to such question, it can hardly be sup- posed, that I am now so oppressed by its immensity as to enter upon the task of writing three or four volumes to re- solve its mysteries. I hope that something higher than this may be accomplished; but, if among other results, they who in answering this question feel constrained (by a faithfulness to duty outvying the Roman father giving his children over unto death) to drive brother and sister from their Father's house and their elder Brother's table with a scourge whose cords are made up of charges of " dishonesty and not lack WHAT IS THE FIRST ERROR? 89 of knowledge," may be relieved from this soul pressure by finding that the Holy Ghost has not committed this painful task to them as custodians of the great truth of revelation embodied in the manner in which water was used in ritual baptism, I shall be very happy. Dr. Ilalley, in his work on " The Sacraments," says, in reference to Baptism, " Let us agree to find out the truth, adhering closely to Scripture, seeking all aid in its correct interpretation, assuming nothing without proof, and carefully endeavoring to detect the cause of the error, on which ever side it be, the npcoTov ^eD^o-, which, lurking in the breast of the one party or the other, in this, as in almost every con- troversy, vitiates all the subsequent reasoning, and, ever present in the dispute, colors, with a false light, the argu- ments adduced on each side of the question ; concealing the weakness of some, and imputing a fictitious value to others. Let us reach, if it be possible, the arx causce of this dispute, and then it surely cannot be difficult for an unprej- udiced mind to ascertain the truth." The justness and the efficiency of such a method of investigation must be obvious to all. It has been my endeavor, thus far, to assume noth- ing, to prove every position, and to adhere, sternly, to the letter of the text. I will, still, endeavor to do so. And, more especially, in passing over the ground of revelation will I lean, in the most absolute dependence, on the ipsissima verba of the Holy Spirit. In revelation I know nothing save as taught by God. N^or do I claim to be an expounder of " things difficult and hard to be understood." I have neither right nor wish to assume the character of a teacher of my brethren. My pretension is this, no more — To have followed the golden thread of truth, slowly, steadily, simply, abso- lutely, through intricacy, winding, and bewilderment, until brought into a broad place. Of this I make report. Those who examine and believe that they see the golden filament stretching unbroken, unwrested, all along the way, will ap- prove and accept; others will condemn and reject. Accepted or rejected, no man is " made a judge over us." The only wise God is the adorable and awful arbiter of truth. 90 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. It should be tlie especial endeavor of all, in this perplexed inquiry, "to adhere closely to Scripture, to seek all aid in its correct interpretation, and to assume nothing loiihout 2J'^oof." As bearing upon this last particular it may be noted, that "the theory" turns upon this double pivot: 1. BaTzzO^u) ex- presses unalterable modal action; 2. BazTzi'^u) is so gram- matically connected with water in the Scripture as to ex- pound and require its modal use in ritual baptism. Xow, I would ask, Whether these two points have ever been proved? and, farther, wdiether there has ever been an attempt to prove them ? If any such attempt has ever been made, I have never heard of it. Dr. Carson says, the Greek word means " dip and nothing but dip through all Greek literature, ex- pressing mode and nothing but mode." But he has not taken the first step toward proof. His own examples of usage not only show that his assumption is erroneous, but that it is an error of the extremest character. ~So point in philology has been or can be proved with more absolute evidence than that ftaixzi'^iu does not express modal action. This first assumption of the theory, then, disappears forever from all controversy. "With the evanishment of the first assumption, the second, also, largely if not wholly, passes away as a shadow. Whatever remains will receive due consideration as occasion may demand. In entering upon an examination of the details of usage, I would remind the friends of the theory of the words of President Wayland — " I stand to whatever God has said ; what men infer from it is merely human and weighs with me just nothing. As a Christian I think I can, in my poor way, defend what God has said; what man has inferred from it, man may defend if he can ; I am not responsible." All others I would remind of those words of John Calvin, stamped on the ploughshare of the Reformation, "It ought not to have any weight with us that an opinion has long and extensively prevailed. We must learn to form our judgment from the matter as it stands, and not from the mistaken opinions of men." These are noble sentiments of noble men. Let it be our nobility to carry them into practice. JOHN'S KNOWLEDGE OF BAHTIZQ. CUKEENT JEWISH BAPTISMS. John's knowledge as to the essential meaning and breadth of usage of /Sa/rrt'Cw must, obviously, enter, as an important element, into any satisfactory determination of his own usage of that word in connection with his baptism. "What sources of information, on these points, were available to him ? The Septuagint translation of the Hebrew Scriptures, in which this Greek word appears, had been made more than two centuries before John's ministry began. The apocryphal Jewish Greek writings which, also, use this word, were in existence for nearly as long a time. Jewish ritual purifications to which this word was applied, and had been applied for more than a hundred years, were in full and daily observance all through the ministry of John. Josephus, writing in Greek, immediately upon the close of John's ministry, employs this, and related words, in his- torical reference to his ministry and baptism. These facts make it obvious, that the word could not enter as a novelty into John's vocabulary. They, also, teach us, that if the word had received any coloring, before it reached John, what was the medium through which it had passed, and from which such coloring must have been received. As to the extent of usage shown by these writings in the employment of this word, I Tvould observe, 1. There is no conclusive evidence that the Septuagint uses this word, in any case, in its simple, primary, physical sense. The same is true with regard to the apocryphal writings. The only instances in which it is so employed by Josephus contem- plates the destruction of life. This is its legitimate and (91) 92 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. ordinary classical use. Such use excludes, of necessity, a dipping from the meaning of this word. A dipping kills nobody. As a consequence from this, and what we would assume without any definite information, there is no con- clusive evidence that the word is used in any of these writings, in a single instance, to express a designed momen- tary envelopment or the modal act of dipping. There is, however, conclusive evidence to show, that the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, and Josephus, do, all, use this word to ex- press condition resultant from controlling influence. There is, also, conclusive evidence furnished by these writings of the perfect adaptability of the word to cxjiress, by appropri- ation, any specific condition resultant from controlling in- fluence, and the very highest probability from these writings (certainty from others), that it was, in fact, so used. Having already examined the usage of this word as shown by the Septuagint and the Apocrypha, w^e shall, now, pro- ceed to examine the use of this word in connection with those Jewish baptisms which antedated and were current with the whole course of John's ministry. The importance of doing this is twofold : 1. As showing John's knowledge; 2. As showing the necessity, if these baptisms diftered, for having some evident, unmistakable mark of discrimination separating contemporaneous baptisms. CEEEMONIAL PUKIFICATION. ' BAPTISM FROM THE MARKET. Mark 7 : 4. "And when they saw some of his disciples eat bread with defiled, that is to say with unwashen, hands, they found fault. For the Pharisees and all the Jews, except they wash their hands oft, cat not, holding the tradition of the elders. "And except they baptize themselves from the market, they eat not." " Ka\ ano ayopaq lav fxij ^aTzriawvrat^ dux iaOiouffi." BAPTISM FROM THE MARKET. 93- The Text. The Codex Siuaiticus has pavTiawvrat instead of [iaTrriffcuvrat. Whether this be accepted as the better reading or not, it shows that the copyist saw no difficulty in a baptism being effected by sprinkling. For in whatsoever way the "water may have been used, on this occasion, it was used to effect a baptism. So, in the hand washing, which Campbell and others say was by "pouring a little water on them," the purpose was to effect a baptism. This is evident from the general custom of the Jews and the language used to ex- pound it, as, also, from the spirit and phraseology of this particular passage. The word required to be supplied in connection with aUa-TzoUd iff-iv a is ^a-Tiffimra. And it is ob- vious that ^a-KTiff/j.oh'^ so reflects back upon the purification of the hands, and the purification from the market, as to bring them into the same class of baptisms. This seems to be Campbell's view, who, in explaining why he translates l3a-Tcafj.ob<; baptisms, and ^aTcriffwvrat dip (their hands) says : 1. " That the appellation baptisms, here given to such washings, fully answers the purpose;" and 2. " That the way I have rendered that word (dip) shows better the contrast between it and vi4>u)vrai so manifestly intended by the evangelist." He seems to think that although he has represented the hands as purified by pouring water upon them in one case and by dipping them into water in another case, they are sufficiently designated as baptisms, by using that term to denote the purification of pots, cups, and couches, since that designation embraced them all. However this may be, it is in proof that baptisms were, indifferently, eftected by sprink- ling, by pouring, and by washing more or less of the person. The text of the Codex Siuaiticus teaches that the baptism was by sprinkling ; the received text teaches that the puri- fication was complete, saying nothing of the manner in which it was effected. Translation. The common version introduces the clause — Wlien they '94 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. come "from the market." Codex D. has the additiou lav iXOojffcv, which Mej-er, De "Wette, and others regard as a good interpretation. Bloomfield would supply cxtfovr-?, or ysvoiievoc, or oVtc?. Sirach 31 : 30 jSaTrrd^d/ievuq a-o '^zxfwu^ " i. e., after re- turning a mortiLO curando," is cited in support of this view. Krebs objects to this interpretation as needing confirmation. He, together with Kuinoel, Olshausen, Lange, and others, w^ould make the reference to provisions brought from the market and washed before eaten. Winer does not regard this as satisfactory, because to do this would be required by the fitness of things and not by a mere precept of Pharisee- ism. It is evident that no interpretation has been suggested which commends itself to universal acceptance. It may, therefore, be allowable to suggest an interpretation which lies close at hand and is grounded in the very phraseology — "except they baptize — thoroughly purify themselves /ro?;i the markeC^ This intimate relation of the Greek verb and the preposition anb does not, now, meet us for the first time. We have had lSa7zn!^6fi£yoz &7td vaxpou, baptized from the dead (Sir. 31 : 30), and ^ar.ri%oij.tvoz aizb r?;? xoj'rjy?, baptized from, the bed (Clem. Alex., I, 1184), and /?a;r-:V(99jre arzb opyr^q, baptize from aiiger, Justin M. In all of these cases the same principle of interpretation must rule. Few would translate — " they baptize themselves returning from the dead, or the things brought from the dead;" nor, "they baptize themselves returning from the bed, or the things brought from the bed." It is evident that pollution has been received " from the bed," "from the dead," and "from the market," and that the object of the baptism is to remove this pollution from themselves, and thus themselves "from the market," "from the bed," and " from the dead," causative of the pollution. The correctness of this interpretation receives support from the parallel phrase tp^avTia/iivot aitb auvetdrjaswq -KovTipaz (Ileb. 10 : 22), in which the other modes of interpretation have no fitness, but which is readily expounded in the way sug- gested. This latter phrase reminds us of the text of the Codex Sin., arro ayopa^ f)avTiawvTai\ the foriu by wliicli the purification was efiected representing the purification itself. And this BAPTISM FROM THE MARKET. 95 phraseology was of sucli frequent recurrence amid Jewish purifications, that it seems to have lost its elliptic character and became directly interpretative, Winer (p. 622, Thayer's Ed.) says, iieravotiv d-nd rr^q xaxiaq (Acts 8 : 22) Originates in like manner with Mark 7 : 4 in a constructio pregnans, though by us it is scarcely felt. This acceptance by the mind of such phrases as conveying thought directly often requires that the verb which is retained shall accept the meaning of the verb which is suppressed. Thus Professor Stuart (lieb. 10 : 22) says, the construction ippavTt loses its modal act under the color- ing influence of blood dropped into the lake, so surely does ^anriZu) lose its intusposition under the purifying influence of water poured upon the altar. 4. " I never used a shift in controversy. The word has this meaning (dip) and no other." I believe, most absolutely, in Dr. Carson's honesty of intention. And, yet, I believe, that there never was a book written which does more com- pletely turn, in its argumentation, on a shifting of words, than does this book — " Carson on Baptism." He sets out with the unqualified position — " the word means dip and nothing but dip through all Greek literature" — and when the word is used to express the condition of the coast under the flux and reflux of the tides, this condition is converted into modal action by shifting from fact to figure, and from prose to poetry, and rhetoricizing " covered and bare" (not included in the use of the word at all) into the in and out of a dipping. And when the altar is baptized by 102 JOHANNIC BAPTISM. pouring water upon it, the modal act of pouring is converted into the modal act of dipping, in the same shiftily style, as was the modal act of flowing. When vessels lie baptized at the bottom of the sea, the most dazzling proof of the in and out of dip is furnished by shifting to immerse, in which word such action never had and never will have place. Thus "without a shift "(!) the univocalism of /Jarrj^w is established. This error of univocalism, both of fact and of kind, is the exclusive dependence of Dr. Carson in his interpretation of the passage before us. HAND-WASHING BAPTISM. Ambrose. — Hand-washing. Ambrose presents this comment : " Ut manus non lavarent, cum panem manducarent; quoniam. Qui lotus est ioius, non habet necesse ui manus lavet (John 13 : 10). Laverat eos Jesus, lavacrum aliud non quaerebant; uno enim Christus baptis- mate omnia solvit baptismata" — The Jews in following the tradition of men, neglect that of God; the disciples in giving precedence to that of God, neglected that of men, so that they would not wash their hands when they ate broad : Since " he who is completely washed has no need that he should wash his hands." "Jesus had washed them, they sought no other baptism; for Christ by one baptism resolves all baptisms" (11,1789). This passage recognizes, most explicitlj^, hand-washing as a baptism. The argument is, The disciples having received the one perfect baptism of Christ did not need that lower purification effected by hand-washing baptism. And they needed, just as little, any other among the "omnia bap- tismata." Justin Martyr addresses the same argument to the Jews: " This baptism is the only one able to cleanse ... of what use is that baptism which cleanses the flesh and the body only ? Baptize the soul and the body is pure" (504). Am- brose uses almost the same words: "Ergo mysterio intende- bant discipuli, non sui munditiam corporis, sed animoe re- CLEMENT OF ALEXANDKIA. * 103 quirentes. Hoc reprehendebant Juclsei; sed argute redar- guntur a Domino, quod iuania observent, profutura despici- aut. The disciples understood the mystery to require, not the cleansing of the body, but of the soul. The Jews ob- jected to this; but the Lord wisely rebuked them, because they observe profitless (baptisms) and reject the profitable." The only rational interpretation of these baptisms is that which refers them to diverse conditions of purification — of the body, ceremonially, and of the soul, spiritually. element of Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria (I, 1352) speaks of hand-washing as a baptism, ei'xwv too lifmriaixaroz. He refers to hand-w^ashing by Telemachus — " Tr^Uimyoc, ds, yjipaq vt4