It was first attempted to prove that Baptize means exclusively to immerse, from the etymology of the word. Baptize is truly a derivative from Bapto: and the primitive meaning of Bapto is to" dip," or to "immerse." It was contended that it always means to immerse. This was long urged and most strenuously insisted on as the foundation of the Baptist argument-that Bapto means nothing but to dip or immerse.

But upon examination it was found, that the meaning of Bapto had undergone important changes; that it often meant only to color, from an allusion simply to the known EFFECT of dipping, and not to the ACT of dipping: and so it is often used, in instances where dipping is wholly out of the question. Thus Hippocrates says of a certain liquid, that when it drops upon the garments, they are (6 Bapto'd ;" or stained. They are Bapto'd, by DROPPING the liquid upon them.*

So Homer, speaking of a battle of frogs and mice on the borders of the lake says (εβαπτετο ἅιματι λιμνη) "The lake was Bapto'd with blood." Says President Edward Beecher,† "On this there was once a battle royal to prove that it could be proper to speak of dip-. ping a lake into the blood of a mouse: and all the powers of rhetoric were put in requisition to justify the

conclusion as its basis), that the word baptizo, as it is used in the New Testament, does not mean immerse; and will not be so understood by those who judge of its meaning by its use in the sacred writings. But to insinuate that Pædo-baptists mean to "corrupt the word of Jehovah," or "to diffuse the opinions of a party,' instead of the "uncorrupted" word of God, by so transferring the word, is, methinks, too gross a calumny to gain credit.

* Carson, p 60.

† Am. Bib. Repos., 1840, p. 50.

usage."* Indeed, on the ground then taken by Dr. Gale and by others, it was necessary to fight for this; for if they could not make it out, their foundation was gone. But since Carson showed the absurdity of the ground, it has been generally abandoned. And yet while the ground is given up, the tracts based on this ground are still in circulation, and do their work in making proselytes, on the strength of an argument which well informed Baptists have in general given up as thoroughly exploded. Such a change in the meaning of a word is a very common occurrence, and it is conceded on all hands that the derivation of a word is no certain index to its meaning.

Thus the word "Tint," comes from a Latin word (Tingo) which originally meant to dip: then it meant to color or 66 tinge," and now we speak of the "tints" of the clouds or of the flowers, without ever thinking that the flowers or the clouds have been dipped to give them their coloring. So the word "Spirit" comes untranslated from the Latin " Spiritus," of which the original meaning was a breath." But what mortal will now contend that a spirit is nothing but breath? And yet there is the same reason for complaining that the word spirit is an untranslated Latin word, that there is for complaining that Baptize is an untranslated Greek word: and the reason from etymology for making spirit mean breath, is just as strong as for making Baptize mean immerse from its derivation from Bapto. So the words

* Carson says, " What a monstrous paradox in rhetoric is the figuring of the dipping of a lake in the blood of a mouse! Yet Dr. Gale supposes the lake was dipped by hyperbole. The literal sense, he says, is, the lake was dipped in blood! Never was there such a figure." —P. 67.

"bind" and "bonds" originally meant to tie up or manacle with cords or chains. But who thinks now of putting cords or fetters on a man when he is "bound" to keep the peace or to appear in court: or when he is put under "bonds" to fulfil the condition of a bargain or agreement?

The mode of making our immersion from the derivation of Baptizo having been overthrown, and its very elements scattered to the wind, the learned Carson has taken another ground; and this is the one now universally relied on. I refer to Carson, because his research has made this field his own on the Baptist side of the question; because he is undoubtedly a very learned and able man,* the chief indeed on the Baptist side in this part of the field of controversy: because their writers are fond of referring to his arguments as something which can never be overthrown and because, indeed, all the more recent works, to which I have had access, are little less than Carson over again. For these reasons I shall follow his argument; fully confident that if it does not stand in him it will never stand in the strength of any man.

Mr. Carson has, with immense labor, hunted over the Greek classics, and found, as he thinks, that the word Baptizo always means, in classic Greek, to dip or imThat this is its common meaning in classic Greek is certain: though I think he has failed to make it out to be its exclusive meaning.

merse.

Having settled its classic meaning, he then attempts • "Mr. Carson, inferior in learning and research to none of the Baptists." [Edward Beecher, Am. Bib. Repos., 1840, p. 51.]

† See the preface to Jewett on Baptism, where he says (p. 4), "The spirit exhibited in the treatise of Carson is not to be commended; his reasoning, however, is unanswerable.”

to make the New Testament meaning in every instance conform to it. Here lies the tug. He cannot accomplish this, unless we will allow him to take the thing to be proved, for granted. The New Testament use isas I think I shall show-most clearly and indefeasibly against him.

Here lies his error: and it is fundamental. He relies on the classic Greek to determine the New Testament Greek: while the facts in the case are as much at war with his conclusions, as the facts in another case would be with the conclusions which should interpret "provisions" in the law of Edward III. to mean victuals: or with the reasonings which would make our Lord say, that men must be born of "water and of wind;" or with those which would make the Sadducees deny that there is any "messenger" or "wind."

Here is a point to be settled: What do Matthew, and Mark, and Luke, and John, and Paul mean by Baptize? To settle this point Homer, and Pindar, and Xenophon are brought up to testify as to the meaning of the word in their country and in their day. Does this settle the question? Is it certain that the word, when adapted to Jewish ideas and Jewish rites, meant precisely what it did in the days of Homer and Pindar? I humbly conceive it might be as well to call the Evangelists and Apostles themselves, and ask them what they meant. But, says the examiner, Pindar, and Homer, and the rest of the Greek classics, have settled the question what Evangelists and Apostles must mean: and so, I shall show, he determines that they shall mean, if he has to get this meaning out of them by torture. But what is the use of calling up Matthew, and Mark, and the Apostles, as

witnesses at all, if the question is settled before they come?

Carson, having finished his appeal to the classics, takes his position. He takes his "position" before we are through with the evidence, or even come to that part of the evidence on which the question really turns. Before coming to the New Testament he says (p. 79), "My position is, that it always signifies to dip, never expressing anything but mode.” He admits that he has all the lexicographers against him:* and I shall show that if the lexi

* Our Baptist brethren have the lexicographers against them on the question of the exclusive sense immerse, more thoroughly than many of them seem to be aware of. All the lexicographers give other significations. And even the learned Cox is much mistaken here. He defies us (p. 83), "to point to a single lexicon which does not give dipping, plunging, or immersing, as the unquestionably settled, and universally primitive meaning of the word."

The defiance can be met, and that on authority which our Baptist brethren are fond of quoting as the very best-the native Greek. Mr. R. Robinson (Hist. of Bapt.), quoted in Fengilly (p. 72), says [and it is often fondly repeated], "The native Greeks must understand their own language better than foreigners, and they have ALWAYS understood the word baptism to signify dipping."—" In this case, the Greeks ARE UNEXCEPTIONABLE GUIDES." If our Baptist brethren choose to make an issue here, be it so. to meet this challenge, I copy the following from Chapin's "Primitive Church," pp. 43, 44.

Simply

"The oldest native Greek lexicographer is HESYCHIUS, Who lived in the fourth century of the Christian era. He gives only the word Banrw [bapto], and the only meaning he gives the word is avrλew [antleo], to draw or pump water.

"Next in order comes SUIDAS, a native Greek who wrote in the 10th century. He gives only the derivative Barrigw [baptizo], and defines it by πλvvw [pluno], to wash."—" We come down to the present century, at the beginning of which we find GASES, a learned Greek, who with great labor and pains compiled a large