down the prophet, not, as Mr. S. would have it, that the prophet's own iniquity overwhelmed him. But I see no objection to admitting "overwhelm" as as a figurative meaning of baptizo in this and other passages.

Two passages may be referred to in the Apocrypha. "And at night she [Judith] went out into the valley of

"But I do not admit the reasoning, that, from this passage, concludes that baptizo signifies to wash, although no instance can be produced more plausible in favour of that opinion. This passage is a complete illustration of my canon. The two words louo and baptizo are here used interchangeably, yet they are not of the same signification. Not of the same signification? it may be asked, with surprise. Elisha commands him to wash; he obeys by baptizing himself; must not baptizing, then, be washing? I think none of my opponents will wish a stronger statement of their objection than I have made for them. But my doctrine remains uninjured by the assault. The true philologist will not find the smallest difficulty in reconciling this passage to it. The words louo and baptizo have their own peculiar meanings even here, as well as every where else, without the smallest confusion. To baptize is not to wash; but to baptize in a river, or in any pure water, implies washing, and may be used for it in certain situations. If Naaman dipped himself in Jordan, he was washed. It comes to the same thing, whether a physician says, Bathe yourself every morning in the sea, or Dip yourself every morning in the sea; yet the words bathe and dip do not signify the same thing. We see, then, that we can make the very same use of our modal word dip, that the Greeks made of their baptizo. No man who understands English will say that the word dip and the word bathe signify the same thing, yet, in certain situations, they may be used indifferently. Persons at a bath may ask each other, Did you dip this morning? or, Did you bathe this morning? To dip may apply to the defiling of any thing, as well as to washing. It expresses no more than the mode. It is the situation in which it stands, and the word with which it is construed, that determine the object of the application of the mode. To dip in pure water, is to wash; to dip in colouring matter, is to dye; to dip into mire, is to defile. None of these ideas, however, are in the word dip itself. No word could determine mode, according to the principles of criticism employed by writers on this subject."Carson, pp. 81, 2, 6-8.

Bethulia, and immersed herself at the fountain in the camp" (Judith xii. 7); and, "If one who is immersed from a dead [carcass] toucheth it again, what is he profited by his bath?" Ecclus. xxxi. 25.

In neither case is there any difficulty or impropriety in translating the term used (baptizo) immerse, which the plainest English reader can see as well as the most learned. "Of these passages I observe," says Professor Ripley, "it is by no means clear that the radical meaning of baptizo ought to be left out of sight, so that the word should be translated by the general term wash, or cleanse, without any allusion made to the specified kind or extent of the washing. Are there any circumstances which entirely forbid us to believe that bathing the whole person is here intended? If there be no necessity

for departing from the radical and ordinary meaning,
then we are not at liberty to put another construction
upon the word."
The learned reviewer then most justly
observes, "that it is nowhere in the book of Judith in-
timated that the action was performed in the midst of
the camp.' All parts of a camp are not equally exposed,
and the place to which she resorted seems to have been
chosen, because, among other reasons, it was somewhat
retired; she went to that place habitually for special
prayer and purification. Besides, this religious ceremony
was performed in the night; and Holofernes, the general
of the army, had given express orders that no one should
interfere with her movements."* The vindication of
the meaning of baptizo in Ecclus. xxxi. 25, is equally
easy; but, as the arguments are essentially the same
as those which relate to Luke xi. 5-8, the reader is
referred to the next Section.

SECTION IV.

LITERAL IMPORT OF BAPTIZO IN THE NEW TESTAMENT.

THERE are upwards of a hundred instances in which the verb baptizo and the noun baptisma occur in the books of which the New Testament is composed. Those which relate to the ordinance itself will be investigated in subsequent chapters. There are thirteen instances in which this term is applied to other objects; of these five only are in its literal, and eight in a figurative sense. The plain meaning of the term has been assailed through these passages; with how much success the reader will be able to determine for himself. The position we maintain is, that there is no instance in which the term baptizo, when used in reference to a bodily act, ought not to be translated immerse. It will now be seen whether, in either of the five cases alluded to, this position is in the slightest degree shaken.*

* The "modern position" of pædobaptists is thus boldly stated by Dr. Miller:-"I am aware, indeed, that our baptist brethren, as before intimated, believe, and confidently assert, that the only legitimate and authorized meaning of this word is to immerse; and that it is never employed, in a single case, in any part of the Bible, to express the application of water in any other manner. I can venture, my friends, to assure you, with the utmost confidence, that this representation is wholly incorrect. I can assure you, that the word which we render baptize, does legitimately signify the application of water in any way, as well as by immersion. Nay, I can assure you, if the most mature and competent Greek scholars that ever lived may be allowed to decide in this case, that many examples of the use of this word occur in Scripture, in which it not only may, but manifestly must, signify sprinkling, perfusion, or washing in any way."

Again :-"Now, we contend that this word does not necessarily, nor

"Then came together unto him the Pharisees, and certain of the scribes, which came from Jerusalem. 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, eat not, holding the tradition of the elders. And when they come from the market, except they wash they eat not. And many others things there be which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brazen vessels, and of tables. Then the Pharisees and scribes asked him, Why walk not thy disciples according to the tradition of the elders, but eat bread with unwashen hands? He answered and said unto them, Well hath Esaias prophesied of you hypocrites, as it is written, This people honoureth me with their lips, but their heart is far from me. Howbeit, in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men. For, laying aside the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups; and many other such like things ye do." Mark vii. 1—8.

The word used in the phrase "wash their hands is nipsontai; that in "except they wash" is baptizontai ; the washing of cups is baptismous, and the same in the eighth verse.

The other two instances are so nearly referring to the same customs, that they will be introduced here; the same explanation making all equally plain.

even commonly, signify to immerse; but also implies to wash, to sprinkle, to pour on water, and to tinge or dye with any liquid; and therefore accords very well with the mode of baptism by sprinkling or affusion."

After taking this bold ground, the Doctor very wisely declines entering into the details of Greek criticism, as not "suitable to our purpose." The Doctor is right there. I have simply to ask, whether Dr. Miller believes Calvin, Luther, Johnson, Porson, Neander, to be mature and competent Greek scholars? Knowing their sentiments, as he must be presumed to do, to be in concurrence with many other great English scholars and divines, and the great majority of the German critics, I am filled with deep regret that a Christian man in such a position should risk his moral character, by printing a statement so very remote from the truth.

"And as he spake, a certain Pharisee besought him to dine with him and he went in, and sat down to meat. And when the Pharisee saw it, he marvelled that he had not washed first before dinner." Luke xi. 37, 38.

The term mistranslated "washed" is "immersed himself," ebaptisthe.

"Which stood only in meats, and drinks, and divers washings, and carnal ordinances, imposed on them until the time of reformation." Heb. ix. 10.

The term rendered "washings" is immersions, baptismous.

First, respecting the declaration that the Jews, "when they come from market, except they wash, eat not;' and the fact that the Pharisee wondered that Christ did not "wash" before dinner; I claim, not only that in both cases the term may be translated immerse, but that it ought so to have been translated. Rendering the word otherwise is contrary to the plain rule that, the ordinary meaning of a word being established, it is not to be changed without necessity requires it; and where is any kind of necessity in these cases? Suppose it was not known that it was customary for the Jews to immerse themselves in the bath after coming from market, or from a crowd (which is the true meaning of agora), before they ate their dinner; because we may be ignorant of a custom alluded to, does that affect the meaning of a plain word? "Let it be observed," says Mr. Carson, "and never let it be forgotten, that, with respect to the meaning of a word in any passage, the proof that it has such a meaning always lies upon him who uses it in that meaning as an argument or objection; for this obvious.