considerably extended from its physical or ordinary import, it would have been so utterly destitute of any material bearing on the great question before us, that it is rather for the satisfaction of our curiosity than for its argumentative support, that even this pains has been taken to prove that our opponents gain not even a nosegay of flowers, much less materials for war, by an excursion among the figurative regions of Greek poesy.

Before taking leave of classical authors, and confining our observations to the Scriptures, let us examine how the case stands with baptizo, on the suggestions with respect to the meaning of words made at the commencement of this chapter.

1. Primitive, or original-that of baptizo is to immerse or dip.

2. Ordinary—that of baptizo is to immerse or dip. 3. Figurative or metaphorical-that of baptizo is to immerse or overwhelm.

4. Technical-baptizo has no technical meaning; bapto was technically used for dyeing, colouring, and even gilding; but baptizo was never thus employed.

I am aware that pædobaptist readers will be amazed at this statement: they can examine whether Professor Stuart, President Beecher, or any other writer, has produced a passage from the Greek classics to the contrary.

SECTION III.

66

IMPORT OF BAPTIZO IN THE OLD TESTAMENT AND APOCRYPHA.

"NAAMAN went down and plunged himself (ebaptisato) seven times in Jordan.” (2 Kings v. 14.) This is Professor Stuart's translation. The prophet had directed him to 'go and wash seven times in Jordan ;" and, as he had not the benefit of podobaptist disquisitions on Greek prepositions, instead of standing on the bank "at Jordan,” he actually went and dipped himself seven times in Jordan. It is certainly a literary curiosity that great scholars, even the candid Professor Stuart, should feel quite sure that the word in the Second Book of Kings means to dip in Jordan,* while a misty doubt still hangs over their minds respecting the meaning of the self-same words in Matthew. Do these gentlemen themselves feel no apprehension that this is an illustration of the principle of moral philosophy, that it requires greater evidence to convince us against our inclinations or prepossessions, than where no mental bias exists?

This passage presents a suitable opportunity to show, that the favourite meaning which pædobaptist divines desire to fasten on baptizo, that of wash,† is a meaning

* Yet Professor Pond persists in bringing this case of Naaman to prove that baptizo is equivalent to louo, and means to wash. Who denies that baptizo often means to wash? It is affirmed, however, that in such cases it means to wash by dipping, which all the world knows was the case with Naaman.

+ The three requisites on which President Beecher insists as essential to the determination of the word, in which I cordially concur, utterly destroy all the previous attempts to pervert the term baptizo ;

which never can be ascribed to the term itself; it quite as truly signifies to defile, as to wash or cleanse. It is

while his attempt to find a new way of escape for his friends, is, in my view, as utterly inefficient as all the efforts which he so candidly condemns. "A view," says this author, "which shall effectually do this (give satisfaction and rest to an inquiring mind) will be found to have the following requisites:

"(1) That it shall be strictly philological.

'(2) That, out of all the possible meanings of baptizo, it shall fix on ONE as the real meaning in the case in question.

"(3) That it shall at all times steadily adhere to this."—Bib. Rep. p. 46.

66

to

These three "requisites " necessary to "give rest," certainly overthrow all previous attempts to affix wash, pour, or sprinkle, or all of them, as the meaning to baptizo; for that neither of them can be "steadily adhered to at all times" is too evident to require illustration. That the learned gentleman's fourth requisite should be necessary give satisfaction and rest to an inquiring mind," partakes of the marvellous, viz. That this shall limit the performance of the rite to no particular mode." This really presents one of the most singular instances of absence of mind that has ever occurred in the field of theological controversy. The question in debate is, "Whether the term baptizo does limit the performance of the rite to any particular mode or not;" and one of the President's essential principles of investigation is, that the true meaning of the term must be one which "shall limit the performance of the right to No particular mode!" All other attempts to find out such a meaning having, in his deliberate judgment, fairly failed, he sets out, not to ascertain the true import of baptizo, but to find out (which he acknowledges has never been done) a meaning which will "limit the performance of the rite to no particular mode." And, with this object in view, he has succeeded to his own satisfaction; and stands, as imagined by himself, in the proud position of being the only individual who has ever had satisfactory ground for believing that the term baptizo limits the rite to no particular mode; for, after having investigated and summed up the labours of his predecessors, he observes, "None of these positions is, in my judgment, adapted to explain all the facts which occur in the use of the word, and to give satisfaction and rest to an inquiring mind."-Bib. Rep. p. 46.

It cannot but be expected that many will turn the deaf ear of prejudice to the call of an opponent; but surely those who are taking a delusive

true that the prophet uses louo (to bathe, or wash), and Naaman dips himself; it is clear, therefore, that baptizo, in certain circumstances, does signify that a dipping is to be performed which shall effect a washing or cleansing : but in other circumstances a dipping may occur by which the object plunged shall be defiled, as in the case of the sword of Ajax, which was plunged up to the hilt in the throat of Cleobulus; on which Dionysius observes, that the poet (Homer) expresses himself with great emphasis, representing the sword to be so baptized (baptisthentos) as to become warm with blood. We presume in this case baptizo does not mean to wash. The same may be said respecting the swords and helmets baptized in the marshes, after the battle of Orchomenus: where it is surely quite as clear that baptizo means to cause to need washing, as that it signifies to wash. The fact is, that the strict meaning of a word is one which is peculiar to it ; to IMMERSE suits ALL the cases in which baptizo is used literally; it is the ONLY meaning which does so; and is therefore the true meaning.*

repose will hear the voice of President Beecher assure them, that, however sound their slumbers, they are occasioned by the opiates of error, and not by arguments "adapted to give satisfaction and rest to an inquiring mind.”

*

The observations of Mr. Carson on this important point are so full and satisfactory, that, for the benefit of those who have not that able work, I extract them.

"To explain this point more clearly, I shall lay down a canon, and by this I mean a first principle in criticism. That which does not contain its own evidence is not entitled to the name of a critical canon. I do not request my readers to admit my canon; I insist on their submission-let them deny it if they can. My canon is, that, in certain situations, two words, OR EVEN SEVERAL WORDS, MAY WITH EQUAL PROPRIETY FILL THE SAME PLACE, THOUGH THEY ARE ALL

ESSENTIALLY DIFFERENT IN THEIR SIGNIFICATIONS. The physician,

The term is used Isa. xxi. 4, “Iniquity sinks me;" in our translation, "Fearfulness affrighted me." Professor Stuart seems to have misunderstood this passage. As Mr. Judd observes, it is the iniquity of others that presses

for instance, may, with equal propriety and perspicuity, say, either 'Dip the bread in the wine,' or 'Moisten the bread in the wine.' Yet this does not import that dip signifies to moisten, or that moisten signifies to dip. Each of these words has its own peculiar meaning, which the other does not possess. Dip the bread does not say moisten the bread, yet it is known that the object of dipping is to moisten. Now, it is from ignorance of this principle that lexicographers have given meanings to words which they do not possess: and have thereby laid a foundation for evasive criticism on controverted subjects, with respect to almost all questions. In Greek it might be said with equal propriety deusai en oino, or bapsai en oino, moisten in wine,' or 'dip in wine;' and from this circumstance it is rashly and unphilosophically concluded that one of the meanings of bapto is to moisten.

"The word occurs in the Greek translation of the Old Testament, and is faithfully rendered dip in our version. (2 Kings v. 14.) 'Naaman went down and dipped himself (ebaptisato) seven times in Jordan.' Here bathing in a river is called baptism. What more do we want, then, to teach us the mode of this ordinance of Christ? If there was not another passage of Scripture to throw light on the institution, as far as respects mode, is not this, to every teachable mind, perfectly sufficient? But, it seems, we are crying victory before the field is won. This passage, which we think so decisive, has a far different aspect to others. On the contrary, it is made to afford evidence against us. Well, this is strange indeed; but ingenuity has many shifts. Let us see how artifice can involve the passage in a cloud. Nothing is more easy. Does not the prophet command Naaman to wash? If, then, he obeyed this command by baptizing himself, baptizing must signify washing. For the sake of argument, I will grant this reasoning for a moment. If, then, this is so, go, my brethren, and wash the person to be baptized, as you think Naaman washed himself from head to foot. This will show that you respect the example. In what manner soever the water was applied to Naaman, he was bathed all over. If the word signifies to wash the whole body, who but the Pope himself, would take on him to substitute the sprinkling of a few drops in the place of this universal washing?

"But